Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 9, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:13:31

Ep. 95: Another Sunday Night Law Stream - Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good evening.
	I don't have the dog.
	That's going to be the biggest disappointment of the week for a great many people.
	The dog's upstairs, probably standing on a table eating a kid's dinner as they watch one of the Harry Potter movies.
	I'll get the dog down here at some point.
	Not Pudge.
	Pudge, for anyone who wants a little TMI, scarf down her breakfast, maybe a little too quickly today.
	Then it came all the way back up.
	Very quickly.
	Then it went back down very quickly.
	And not because, you know, not despite my objections.
	I let her eat it because that was some good raw beef that she threw up on the floor.
	And it's a lot easier than cleaning it up.
	With that said, people, how's the audio?
	How is the visual?
	I'm back in the studio, which is beautiful, wonderful.
	I actually have to back up a little bit because the fro is taking a little bit too much of the frame.
	And we've got a...
	We've got a good stream tonight, because I don't know who was listening to the oral arguments before SCOTUS on Friday.
	My goodness.
	First of all, we aired it.
	Barnes was on Eric Hundley's channel, doing it live.
	And the video, the stream was demonetized, for whatever the reason.
	And 25,000 views later, after everyone's watched it, it got remonetized after manual review.
	That sucks for Eric, but hopefully people enjoyed the commentary and the livestream.
	I had to duck out a little early.
	Oh, man.
	It was dog vomit.
	It was just raw beef.
	I mean, I swear to you, I could have taken it and cooked it if I, you know, times are not there yet.
	But one day.
	Who knows?
	Who knows?
	No more ToiletStream.
	You know what?
	I'm an idiot.
	I did not have to say that that was in a bathroom.
	That could have been anywhere.
	That backsplash could have been anywhere.
	But I believe in outright, full honesty.
	All the time, even if the guest did not ask for it.
	That stream was amazing with Chris Martinson.
	And I'm trying to find the spot where he gave the white pill moment and he said how you get out of the mass formation psychosis is like, just keep trying to talk sense into regular people.
	I need to find that highlight from the stream and then put it out as a short clip.
	AOC caught COVID three times vaccinated in Florida.
	I don't know if that's a joke or not.
	I do know, and we do know, that AOC, despite imposing and supporting very, very strict mandates in New York, Washington, yada, yada, everybody seems to flee to Florida.
	The politicians in Canada impose lockdowns, curfews, and the strictest of measures, and then magically fly off to St. Barts, Bermuda, Bahamas, you know.
	Only the best for our dear politicians.
	You know, the political elite class.
	Viva, can you update the video on your landing page on YouTube?
	2019 was a tumultuous year, but it was a few years ago.
	Yes, and tumultuous my butt in comparison to 2020, 2021, and what 2022 seems to be turning into.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	In the chat, what video should I put up as the highlight, or should I put together another...
	Highlight montage.
	That video took a long time to make.
	Maybe I'll try it, you know, an updated version.
	Okay, so let's, before we get it, well, standard disclaimers, if you hear too much noise from upstairs, let me know and I'll, I don't know, scream from downstairs that everyone should be quiet.
	Viva, I'm two bottles of red wine deep for my heart health.
	I didn't need that image in my mind.
	I was not on the toilet this time.
	The last time I did the vlog a year ago on the elections, I was actually on the toilet, and people were asking me, is that a magazine rack up on your left?
	Because it's a magazine rack.
	We were in a cottage, family cottage.
	They have a magazine rack in the bathroom, and it had a story about Prince Andrew from 2009.
	So, okay, look, before we get in, let me just get some standard disclaimers.
	YouTube takes 30% of all Super Chats, so if you don't like that, you can give a Rumble rant on Rumble, where we are simultaneously streaming.
	Rumble has Rumble rants like Super Chats.
	They only take 20%, which is better for the creator, better for the platform, so you can appreciate supporting, yada, yada, yada, yada.
	It is not a right of entry into the conversation.
	If it is a rude, degrading, or mean Super Chat, and I happen to read it beforehand, I reserve the right not to bring it up.
	If I bring one up, like this one, without reading it...
	Occasionally, they will say bad things.
	Forgive me in advance.
	I do not do it to approve or condone of a message.
	Zachariah Kitzman, which might be the best name I've ever heard, says, Viva, general question for Ewan Barnes.
	How is Chuck Schumer the majority leader when the Senate is 50 Republican, 48 Dems, two independents?
	I cannot find a good answer anywhere.
	I'm going to screenshot that because Lord help me if I know the answer.
	And we'll ask Robert when he gets in here.
	The FRO is looking magnificent this evening.
	I love seeing the grey streaks.
	Like, remember Jim Henson from Talk Soup had like a white circle on the side of his hair?
	I just got random sporadic white streaks going across my hair.
	Let me get into the rant today, people.
	Because it's a rant.
	I may get upset.
	I did an interview, which I can't disclose with whom until the show is going to be broadcast.
	But one of the questions I was asked was, the progression of my channel over time has gotten angry.
	First of all, I don't think it's gotten angry as if being angry is itself a flaw.
	I would call it more righteous indignation, more cynical, more eyes open, more frustrated and impatient with the buffoonery and the chicanery and the political garbage.
	But I said, looking at the world, if you're not getting angry at what you see going on, That in and of itself might be a problem.
	There is no virtue in passivity and, I don't know, what do you call it?
	Like sucking in the oxygen on a plane as it crashes.
	There's no virtue in that.
	I don't think I've gotten angry.
	I think I've gotten realistic.
	But when you talk about getting angry, for those of you who don't follow us on vivabarneslaw.locals.com, I'm having problems with my fish tank.
	I don't know why there seems to be something of an algae bloom.
	It's a shade of green.
	That's not normal for a freshwater tank.
	The fish are alive and the fish are well.
	And I did a 50% water change.
	But I said, oh, I'm going to go out and get a UV light.
	Because apparently that might kill whatever bloom is in there.
	I think.
	Maybe it'll make it worse.
	And I couldn't go because stores are closed in Quebec on Sunday as part of their COVID response.
	And I, for the love of all things that are holy, don't understand it.
	They've closed stores on Sundays.
	I drove to the fish market with my kid in the car today to get him to fall asleep, which he did.
	The fish market was closed.
	La Mer.
	It's a fish market.
	Closed on a Sunday.
	The grocery store closed on a Sunday.
	And I'm sitting there thinking, once upon a time, someone fact-checked me on this, I think I was old and alive to remember when stores in Quebec were closed on Sundays for religious reasons.
	I'm certain I have memories of it.
	Born in 79, so someone can...
	Fact check if this is a false memory or not.
	But I remember stores being closed on Sundays for religious reasons in Quebec in my lifetime.
	Since everything's been opened up on Sunday, because you have freedom to not be shut down by religion, but that's how powerful religion was in the province of Quebec once upon a time.
	We are now living in an era where the government, under the guise of COVID protections, if you can believe the idiocy because shutting down stores on a Sunday does nothing except for concentrate.
	But setting that aside, the government has now basically said, we are replacing religion.
	We are the new God, and you will worship us, and you will adhere to our dictates the way you did once upon a time when Quebec was a deeply religious province that had stores closed on Sunday.
	And it's beyond that.
	It's beyond that.
	I said this in the Viva on the Street rants.
	We celebrated.
	We had a funeral.
	In our family today.
	Not immediate family, so it's not a Friday.
	And not a...
	All death is tragic.
	An elderly person, so it's not unexpected, not expected, but you reach a certain point in life.
	These things happen.
	This is what life is.
	And not to politicize it, not to weaponize it, people.
	I don't know.
	It was not COVID-related.
	It was not booster-related that any of us know of.
	It was an acute underlying issue.
	And we have to have the funeral by Zoom.
	It was an international funeral, so in a way, the technology is nice in that if you could not have otherwise made it, it's a great way of connecting.
	But the idea that people now are forced to, I want to say celebrate funerals, mourn via Zoom.
	The government comes in and says, we're shutting you down on Sundays.
	We're your new God.
	We are separating you from your friends and your family and we are now dictating how you mourn the loss of your loved ones.
	The government is destroying all the fundamental core values of society and ostensibly, and maybe I'm overreacting, trying to replace those core pillars with itself.
	They are trying to make themselves the new god of the modern era by destroying the underlying values and the underlying principles that made...
	Western society, what it was, free and beautiful.
	And a Zoom funeral is a great convenience if you live overseas and can't make it in for the funeral because whatever.
	But the idea that the government is controlling every aspect of your life right down to how you mourn the loss of your loved ones, it's enraging.
	It's enraging.
	Because of the internet delay in ads, you'll need to go live 30 seconds earlier to avoid accusations of being late.
	Touche.
	Look at this.
	This is me now.
	That's me now, and I know because...
	Hold on, guys.
	This is going to be meta.
	Okay, that's funny.
	Hold on, let me screenshot that.
	Okay, well, I need to figure out the bumper thing that everyone does when they have a little promo video that goes live before they do.
	Eric, Hunley, help me with that if you can.
	Okay, I missed a lot of super chats before we bring Robert in the house.
	I have a magazine rack in my bathroom.
	You're not supposed to read on the toilet, people.
	That's how you get hemorrhoids.
	Of course...
	Everyone goes in with their phones anyhow, so that adds time to the duty.
	Can you and Robert talk about Washington State trying to pass laws creating C-19 camps and a law banning anyone from questioning the results of elections?
	Love.
	Yeah, thank you very much.
	Now, hold on.
	I want to get to two super chats before we bring in the Barnes.
	Kayleigh Eiserhoff.
	So I'm angry.
	I am angry because the world has gone to absolute depths.
	That one would have never anticipated it could have gone to three years ago, two and a half years ago.
	You tell people that you're not going to be able to conduct funerals, that you're going to be three doses to be compliant with the vaccine, and if you don't do that, you're going to be shut out of society for a virus with a 99 point whatever percent survival rate in the original variation, and even more so with the Omicron, despite what Sotomayor thinks.
	We'll get there in a bit.
	So yeah, there's nothing wrong with being angry when the world requires anger, but it's how you...
	Vent that anger and what you do with that anger to make sure it's productive, useful, and a value added, and not a black pill.
	How do you like those SCOTUS questions?
	My God, talk about misinformed.
	100,000 children in the hospital.
	We'll get there.
	We'll get there in a few minutes.
	And then there was one more orange chat, which I believe I may have missed, but I'm going to go back this way.
	Okay, this is from Richard Doucet.
	Oh, I know.
	This name sounds familiar.
	Viva, I've lived everywhere in Canada, and Montreal was the most frustrating for how early and how often stores would close.
	The best place for stores being opened is in Alberta, Calgary, and Vancouver, a close second.
	Richard Doucet, let me see if I can find your chat.
	And if I can't...
	Oh, I think it's right there.
	Boom!
	Shakalaka.
	Yeah, and you know what the best place is?
	New York City for that.
	Although maybe not anymore, because even if I go to New York, I'm not leaving the house after sundown.
	It's like reverse Zombieland.
	Sun goes down, you go in and you lock the door with the chain, with the bolt, and with whatever.
	Ray K., you want angry.
	You need to read the real Anthony Fauci.
	Unreal, please have RFK Jr. on.
	RFK Jr. is scheduled to be on, and we're going to have him on.
	We just had some scheduling issues, and I was going to get it on Audible today.
	When the kid fell asleep.
	All right, people.
	On the menu, because Barnes is in the house and I see him.
	Let me go back here.
	Vaccine mandates updates, and we're going to talk SCOTUS, because that was over the top.
	A story that I don't think anybody really cares about, but we're going to talk about it anyhow.
	The Nirvana lawsuit was dismissed, or was it?
	I think it was, but it wasn't.
	FOIA requests.
	Okay, so that was not the movie.
	That was a kid upstairs.
	Vaccine passports in big cities.
	Judicial watch.
	Oh, the January 6th cover-up.
	The Whitmer kidnapping plot takes more turns.
	Okay, and then some other interesting stuff, but we have to start with the one that I know is on everybody's minds.
	But in order to do that, we must, ladies and gentlemen, bring in the barns.
	Robert, how goes the battle?
	Good, good, mostly.
	I've never heard you start with anything but good, good.
	Do you have a cold?
	I may have picked up Omicron.
	Okay.
	So my voice may be a little off tonight.
	Okay, fine.
	Well, if you picked up Omicron, it's probably the best one to pick up, and it's going to lead to some serious memery in the chat.
	If anyone doesn't understand what Robert says, I will be his translator.
	Robert, before we even get started, what book do you have in the back?
	Damages 3 by David Ball.
	So it's a good book that covers the way jurors' minds really work.
	All right, and Robert, if you need to, we'll see how this goes.
	Okay, dude, you're going to be fine.
	What are you drinking?
	That is a Grand Cru Glenfinich.
	All right, and that is the ultimate elixir for the O, the big O. Robert, we were on for a bit on Friday.
	I didn't get to hear all of the arguments, but they had two hearings on Friday.
	One was on the OSHA mandates.
	The other one was on the Medicare mandates or the Medicaid mandates.
	The OSHA, I understand, a little better than the Medicare or Medicaid.
	I'm not even sure what the right word is.
	OSHA was the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which was basically creating the requirement for vaccination as a workplace safety issue federally, throughout all states.
	And as far as I understand, the question is whether or not the federal authorities have that power.
	Or whether or not OSHA granted that power on a federal basis to basically govern interstate and state employment.
	Elaborate, because that's not going to be a good enough explanation, and then we're going to get into some of the idiocy that, sorry, I should be respectful, some of the gross misinformation that was spoken by SCOTUS, at the very least Sotomayor, that day that has made the rounds on social.
	Yeah, the legal question, which there wasn't a lot of judges asking legal questions, the legal question was, does the federal government, the executive branch, and these particular agencies have the statutory and constitutional power to mandate vaccines?
	As it relates to the non-delegation doctrine, as it relates to the interstate commerce clause, as it relates to the rights reserved to the people or the states, as it relates to the federal government not having police power, though that apparently confused Sotomayor.
	Didn't understand what that was.
	What?
	Federal government didn't have police power?
	Of course they do.
	Apparently somebody skipped con law class altogether before she got on the bench.
	And whether or not these...
	So even if they had the constitutional power at the outset, did Congress give them this power by statute?
	Because this was not done congressionally through the legislative branch.
	This was the executive branch unilaterally doing it.
	And then the third question was, even if Congress could give them that power, even if Congress did give them that power, did they execute that power in the manner consistent with the law in the Constitution, including the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires...
	Citizen petitions, notice and comment, opportunity for dissent, opportunity for democratic process, which they skipped all of in every single one of these mandates.
	And yet, very few questions from the three liberal judges particularly about any of the legal issues.
	Their whole argument was, hey, it's an emergency.
	Throw out the law in a case of emergency.
	We should be here to debate policy.
	This is a scary, scary virus, and it's so scary.
	We think Justice Breyer thinks 750 million Americans got it yesterday, which would be a shock to most Americans given that we don't have 750 million Americans.
	We have 330 million Americans.
	Justice Sotomayor said it's ravaging through the children.
	100,000 of them are in the hospital right now from COVID.
	And most of them, they're on ventilators.
	They're about to die.
	There's about 100 that are in the hospital because of COVID.
	There's about 3,000 total that are in the hospital with COVID.
	But there is no...
	That's what Fauci admitted last week.
	Yeah, well, that's what I was going to say.
	The 780 million, whatever, that I could forgive or almost assume she meant 780,000 like when Joe Biden said however many 100 million people have been killed from whatever.
	Those types of mistakes, fine.
	But the 100,000 is not a...
	I say not a forgivable mistake in the sense that that's not a misspeak.
	That's not a flub.
	That's clearly a plausible number if you are grossly misinformed.
	And yet, getting back to Fauci, who last week basically said, we don't even know because we're not doing the distinction between hospitalized with versus hospitalized from COVID.
	But how does someone who's the decision maker of decision makers get so ill-informed?
	And the question that they were talking about on Tim Pool, evil or ignorance?
	I have to side with ignorance because nobody wants to be embarrassed that badly in the position that she's in.
	But how does it get there?
	And where do you go from there?
	Well, you could tell from their tone, their arrogant, contemptuous tone, that the facts were clearly on their side.
	And anyone who disagreed was an idiot.
	And unfortunately, these lawyers did not have either the interest or, you know, choose put up to fight back.
	I mean, because from the outset, when Breyer started saying...
	Why should we grant a stay?
	This is a dangerous emergency.
	The comeback immediately should have been, every time this court makes a decision in deference to the executive branch in the name of an emergency, it makes horrendous decisions, infamous decisions.
	That's what led to Buck v.
	Bell.
	They forced sterilizations.
	That's what led, in part, to forced segregation by the same court that approved fines for vaccination.
	But it's really also what led to forced detention camps.
	So whenever the courts say, oh, geez, we better not get involved, scary, scary emergency, that's exactly when they need to get involved to protect civil rights and civil liberties.
	That should have been the first pushback.
	But the other, they should have pushed back against all of these patently false claims.
	I mean, Kagan kept saying, vaccines stop transmission.
	We all know they stop transmission.
	It's like, no, we now know it doesn't.
	That's not even in dispute anymore, especially with the Omicron variant.
	It has no impact.
	Well, it may have an impact, but a small one.
	It does not stop it by any stretch.
	So they just wanted to badger everybody that we better just screw the law.
	This is a scary, scary emergency.
	Let Biden do whatever he wants.
	End of story.
	And it shows how frightening the courts can be in cases of emergency and where the liberal justices are these days because they were wrong on the facts, wrong on the law.
	But the most disturbing thing was...
	Here they are making legal decisions and not asking hardly any legal questions.
	And by the way, I think when you said the chutzpah, I think you meant you got to get the throat.
	But maybe you have a sore throat, so don't do it.
	It'll make it worse.
	Okay, so if we back it up to the bottom line of the legal issues, you have OSHA.
	Explain to the world, and maybe even to SCOTUS if they're listening, what is OSHA?
	What was intended to be the scope, application, and limitations of OSHA?
	It was supposed to be to make sure employers keep their employment settings safe for businesses that are in interstate commerce.
	That's it.
	And that was one of the points Alito made.
	He said, when is the last time that OSHA has ever imposed a rule that can hurt the employee?
	Because he got them to admit the vaccine can hurt them at least some of the time.
	Some people will be hurt by the vaccine.
	He goes, what's the last rule you ever put in where the employee could be hurt?
	By the vaccine.
	Thomas raised, he goes, maybe this is not even that effective.
	How do we know how effective it is?
	So, but that's all.
	OSHA is a very limited space.
	Workplace safety for interstate commerce.
	Not complete control over a person's body.
	That's never been there, Grant.
	And for the YouTube overlords, the statement made by Robert, and I'll echo it, it's not about this vaccine per se.
	It's a known fact.
	For any and all vaccines, you can have an anaphylaxis response to it.
	It can trigger shingles.
	Any and all vaccines can, which is questions you need to ask your doctor before doing anything.
	It can trigger GBS.
	Although, in fairness, illness can also trigger GBS.
	So you have to...
	Guillain-Barré syndrome, which is where your body attacks its own nervous system and paralyzes, sometimes fatally.
	So the question is, when have they ever mandated something that could cause harm to the employees at large?
	I mean...
	They touched on it, and it was, as far as I'm concerned, the only tougher argument.
	They would argue that under certain circumstances, the flu shot has been mandated to employees in the healthcare field.
	But never by OSHA.
	But never by OSHA.
	That was the distinction.
	So, in what context has the vaccine been mandated for the flu, and then under what context, if not OSHA?
	Hospitals have done so on their own accord, but with religious exceptions and medical exceptions.
	In fact, both the Obama administration and the Trump administration successfully sued hospitals who failed to accommodate religious objections or medical accommodations.
	Okay, so fair enough.
	Now, if and when at any point in time flu shots had been mandated, it was industry-specific by the employers and not under the guise of OSHA.
	OSHA, so now OSHA is intended to protect employees from their employers, employer practices, conditions of employment.
	And especially like...
	Asbestos, rare issues, not commonplace issues.
	But when you say for interstate commerce, is that to say that a commerce that might operate strictly and only within one state and not interstate would never be subject to the provisions of OSHA?
	There's only businesses that operate between the states.
	They can't regulate businesses that only operate within a state, single state, because the interstate commerce clause is their excuse for this power.
	Arguably, it's a complete abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause, but that's where we're at.
	Okay, and so that's the essence of OSHA.
	The government is coming in, issuing an executive order or directive under OSHA, basically governing all employees and all employers across the country.
	The argument is going to be, and the argument was, why hasn't Congress done it?
	Did Congress ignore doing it, or did they refuse to do it?
	It somehow didn't come up.
	Breyer made the point that Congress had not acted.
	The Senate has acted.
	It said the mandates are illegal.
	It was something that surprised me that it didn't come up, because it should have come up.
	The Senate has voted.
	Now the House hasn't voted, so it's not binding legislation.
	But the Senate's made clear what they believe.
	These mandates are not legal.
	Everybody knows what's happening here.
	It's not like...
	There's any real doubts about what Congress's mindset is, and they're just pretending otherwise.
	Unvaccinated Canadians can't enter the U.S. Does anybody know this?
	Will this change?
	I don't know.
	I would call the border, see what they have to say.
	Okay, so for anybody who listened to it, the Q&A period was very interesting.
	On the one hand, I'll say, you know, not from a legal perspective, but from a strategic perspective.
	Listening to the judges ask the questions, on the one hand, and I did notice this was divided, in my view, the traditional liberal judges, when they asked a question, it was as though it was a leading question to the attorney to get them to offer the information they wanted to offer, and when it was the conservative judges or the right judges, it was as though it was a question to the other judges to let them know why they're wrong, also sort of to needle on the lawyers to say what they wanted to say.
	I mean, what was your impression of the questions coming from the judges in terms of what it indicated, in terms of where they're going, and where their general knowledge of the subject is?
	Well, if you just saw a drawing of the court, you would see that three justices had no mask on.
	Because every justice is triple-vaxxed.
	Everybody in there was triple-vaxxed.
	Everybody had a clear COVID test to come in.
	And yet six justices were wearing masks on top of everything else.
	But three were not.
	The three that were not.
	We're Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch.
	And their questions were pretty clear.
	That their focus was, do you have lawful authority or not?
	And what's the basis of your lawful authority?
	Thomas asked more questions than he typically does, which he's been doing lately as a general habit.
	So it's clear to me that Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito are going to say these mandates don't pass legal scrutiny, statutory or constitutional.
	The only question was, and the three liberals were all going to be gung-ho for it, and they all were.
	Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, who's kind of carving out space as the most liberal ideologue on the bench now that Ginsburg is gone.
	And she was glad to do that.
	She appeared remotely, probably to be extra safe.
	Who knows?
	Robert, if I may ask, who are the conservative judges, conservative, I'll just say the right-wing judges wearing masks?
	Roberts?
	It's the three centrists.
	It's what I call the three establishment-oriented institutional centrists.
	Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Roberts.
	And it's not a surprise, but it's so...
	It was interesting how symbolically significant that was.
	That coming into this hearing particularly, you would have that division.
	Someone says, Robert, you sound like A.J. when he was on the show and everyone was like, Alex Jones' voice seems deeper tonight.
	Okay, so...
	Look, we heard the questions.
	A lot of people are saying, I'm not trying to pick on Sotomayor, but you can't avoid it.
	A lot of people are saying, is there nothing the general population can do, given the apparent monumental ignorance of the highest court justices of the land?
	Is there nothing the public can do other than gawk at the insanity of some of the questions these judges asked?
	Well, I think Sotomayor.
	Did not expect the blowback she got because she was so egregiously wrong, the Washington Post made fun of her.
	So that I'm sure she didn't expect.
	And that did severe damage to their argument.
	Sotomayor just made rhetorical arguments like the Solicitor General did.
	It was all about, this is a great policy.
	Who cares about the law?
	Pretend the law allows it.
	The Kagan, mostly the same.
	Breyer was trying to get the Solicitor General to recognize arguments that he wanted The Solicitor General to make to Roberts.
	The Solicitor General wasn't processing it.
	So the Solicitor General did a poor job arguing.
	And Pryor couldn't even get the Solicitor General to make...
	Often judges will ask questions really trying to get a lawyer they think is on their side to make an argument to another judge.
	That's often what's happening at oral argument.
	And so Pryor was clearly nervous about where Roberts was going.
	And he figures Barrett and Kavanaugh might follow Roberts.
	So he was trying to convince the Solicitor General...
	To highlight some of these common sense problems.
	And the Solicitor General didn't.
	Probably in part because the Solicitor General can't.
	I mean, all of this is what they've done, they've never done before.
	They've never issued a vaccine mandate like this before.
	They've never issued an emergency rule of this scope without going through a petition or noticing comment before.
	They've never done any of this before.
	So she doesn't have good arguments to come back.
	And you dig into the facts.
	The facts aren't good either.
	So that's why Sotomayor's making them up.
	Breyer's making them up.
	Kagan's making them up.
	You look at the questions from Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh.
	They were all focused on, isn't this a little too much?
	And so that's why I think it's going to be 5, 4, 6, 3 to strike down Biden's mandates.
	And it says here, I was really waiting for one of the sets of lawyers arguing against the vaccine to say, you know, my body, my choice.
	I guess no one was that brave.
	But I have an open mind.
	I don't come in with preconceived notions as it relates to the judges, primarily because I don't even know offhand necessarily which ones are liberal, which ones are conservative, which ones are centrist.
	But the questions and the hyperbole coming from the judges was what you would expect to hear from a bad lawyer, not from the highest decision makers in the world, in the country.
	And it's hyperbolic, and it's grotesquely ignorant.
	And it's the highest, allegedly supposed to be the most informed, most educated people in the land who are going to be making these decisions for the rest of the world.
	Sorry, for the rest of the country.
	And to some degree, the rest of the world is probably going to follow.
	We're already beyond that in Canada.
	You're going to need the proof of vaccination to go to the SAQ, to the liquor store, as of January 18th.
	So you're going to have a lot of people loading up beforehand.
	But I mean, this is not a rhetorical question.
	Did their conduct during that hearing potentially irreparably harm whatever was left of the dignity of the Supreme Court?
	I think of the people who listened to it, it was shocking.
	I mean, it wasn't a surprise to me.
	I mean, I'd been trying to argue all along that politics is what motivates these kind of decisions, not the law.
	And I always got pushback from lawyers and others on it.
	They got to see in full display.
	This was a classic example of that.
	Where were the legal questions from Kagan?
	Where were the legal questions from Breyer?
	Where were the legal questions from Sotomayor?
	There were pretty much none.
	Almost every question was about the politics of the policy.
	That's it.
	And so people that were not familiar with that or didn't realize that were kind of shocked into recognizing it.
	And then there was a double layer of it when they realized just how dumb most judges are.
	This has always been true.
	Judges are old people that live in isolated places.
	And I say this as someone who has family and friends that are on the court.
	And so there's some exceptions, but they're rare.
	And I won't get anybody into trouble as to who told me this in my life.
	But typically the lawyers that become judges do it because it's a pay jump.
	It's a stature jump.
	And so in a way, like the lawyer who's the top litigator of a firm making a million, a million and a half a year is not necessarily going to accept.
	A demotion, effectively, to a quarter of a million dollars a year to be a judge.
	And so, although the SCOTUS has its stature, so people want that for the stature, which itself becomes a corrupting, motivating factor.
	But now, I just want to say this.
	Interstate commerce in the meaning of all the semi-truck drivers.
	I mean, I presume this would apply to truck drivers.
	Well, they were trying to do it, but a bunch of truck drivers were going to quit, so they backed off.
	Okay.
	There's not that many good truck drivers, as the Colorado case reminded everybody.
	That's a true profession.
	You need to be really skilled at what you do, otherwise you get questionable people doing it.
	Skilled and dedicated, because it's a tough life to be away from your family for endless periods of time.
	If you have a family...
	It's a tough job.
	I don't think I would be able to do it myself.
	Robert, please confirm my thought that my business clients who mandate the jab could be personally liable for injuries sustained by their employees.
	We've discussed it before.
	Chris Whalen?
	I think so.
	It's going to be a novel question, but there's clearly a risk that they are.
	Okay, now I wanted to find...
	I saw a red Super Chat, and I believe I know by the avatar who it is, so give me 30 seconds to see if I can find it.
	Don't give me 30 seconds.
	I don't need 30 seconds for that.
	It'll be five seconds.
	There we go.
	Boom.
	No, it was not the right avatar.
	Andy Pearson.
	I'm from the future.
	SCOTUS sided with Brandon.
	You could pass as Doc from Back to the Future.
	I just can't see them.
	The questions they asked didn't show that.
	I just don't see two of the three.
	Kavanaugh is definitely going to say they don't have the power.
	So all you need is either Barrett or Roberts.
	And I just don't see them approving this.
	They might want to try to limit the scope of the decision, but they're not going to approve this.
	Too many conservative legal minds say that no way this has the power.
	If you look at this as a pure legal question, it's a no-brainer.
	It's only if you're blinded by politics that you even permit this to occur.
	And Biden administration kind of knows that.
	Biden himself kind of knows that.
	Well, they alluded to it a while back as a workaround.
	But thank you very much for the chat.
	The question that I had, though, Robert, let's just assume it goes the way you predict.
	Five, four, six, three gets struck down.
	What's the next move from Biden and the federal?
	Because if we follow what happened in other SCOTUS cases, they say a month later, yeah, good for you and what you said in the Supreme Court.
	We're going to try it again with a different spin.
	I mean, it's possible, but I think that they're going to just knock all these down.
	And they were making the point, even Breyer was making the point, that this is clearly an attempt to put a bunch of elephants in mouse holes to have one uniform federal policy that really should go through Congress.
	Even Breyer was kind of conceding that.
	He thinks it's good policy, but he doesn't think this approach is going to work as well.
	I don't think Breyer will join.
	The conservatives, unless he can really limit the legal precedent set.
	But I think they're going to say the OSHA mandate, the Medicare mandate, the federal contractor mandate, all are no good.
	And then it's going to go back to private businesses and a local government level where the fight will take place.
	You can fit an elephant through a...
	What is it?
	A keyhole?
	I mean, you just need a big enough blender.
	So, I mean, that's basically the mess of law that they would have to make in order to do it.
	Okay, so that was on the OSHA.
	Have we left anything out of OSHA?
	No, no, that covers it.
	And the Medicare mandate's pretty much the same.
	There's not a lot of difference.
	It's all, I mean, the same arguments were made.
	Policy arguments by the liberals.
	Questions about this use of power by the conservatives.
	And in particular, and the centrist saying, isn't this a little too far?
	You know, are there any limits here?
	And they couldn't say, I mean, if you can mandate this, could you mandate people eat broccoli once a day?
	I mean, what else could you mandate?
	Well, Robert, and some people have asked the question rhetorically.
	If you can mandate this, why could you not and how could you logically not mandate all vaccines?
	Just mandate all vaccines.
	Absolutely.
	Mandate medicines.
	Mandate therapies.
	Mandate, I mean, anything.
	Mandate people not be above a certain BMI or weight.
	You could keep going on and on and on and on and on.
	That's why it's like that there's no meaningful limit to what the Biden administration is proposing.
	And they failed to provide one to the Supreme Court while admitting that there's a bunch of things that they really couldn't do, even though the logic of this case would be that they can do it.
	And I think we talked about it.
	I don't know when we talked about it, but the truck driver, I mean, segue into that, although we'll come back to other stuff while it's in my brain.
	The truck driver who had his sentence reduced or commuted from 110 years to 10 years.
	I know we talked about it last week, but I think I saw a story this week, which was the judge on the case effectively criticizing the governor for not respecting the judiciary because apparently the governor, I hope it's the governor, commuted the sentence before there could be a rehearing on the sentence before the judge, and the judge, I guess, took offense to that.
	Had you heard about that controversy?
	I had not.
	Okay.
	No, I guess I was just curious as to...
	The politics behind it where the judge, not the judge, but the governor commuted the sentence before the re-hearing, before the judge, and the judge is like, I respect the government, and the government doesn't seem to respect me.
	Okay, so I guess on the subject of the vaccine mandates now, or overall, what has been the updates from the battles that you are waging, Robert, and others?
	So the Head Start mandate.
	It was struck down in another court, a federal court in Texas.
	So it's been struck down now in about, I think, half the states.
	A Louisiana court struck it down.
	A Texas court struck it down.
	So that was good on that side of the aisle.
	A bunch of other cases are going to be heard fully on appeal in the vaccine mandate context.
	A bunch of the California school districts lost the ability to do a vaccine mandate until the state mandates it because of a procedural issue with state law.
	And the Navy SEALs won the first ever injunction against a military vaccine mandate in federal court in Texas because it was clear that the Navy was not giving meaningful religious objections of the right accommodation, which the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act required.
	And that was a very big ruling.
	A lot of people thought it couldn't happen because it's so hard to challenge military rules in federal court.
	And this court stepped in and, in my view, made the right decision on behalf of Navy SEALs to stop the vaccine mandate as to them.
	So those were the really good rulings on vaccine mandates over the past week.
	And I will take this time to know we have breached the 10,000 live viewer mark on the YouTubes, and we're at 2,000 on the Rumbles.
	So at this point, I invite everybody, if you haven't already given a thumbs up, I don't care if you do or you don't, but I appreciate if you do, and drop a comment just so the chat goes absolutely haywire.
	Robert, we're having RFK on, right, at some point?
	I mean, I know we have to reschedule.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	It's figuring out what its most recent schedule is.
	Okay, so those are the vaccine mandate updates.
	I read a case, it was in respect of the January 6th, which we have to talk about, that day of commemoration, to make a mockery of actual commemorations.
	But there were some, I think it was Navy members who had been dismissed for not getting vaccinated.
	Are those, had you heard that story?
	Yeah, the Navy SEALs won their case, so they were protected in their position for the time being.
	And it's a good sign of what might happen in general in the military.
	Because of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act that I think the military had not paid attention to sufficiently.
	I'm from the future?
	Barnes is a god now.
	I'm curious to know that.
	There's one other red one, which if I don't get to it, it's from Redfish Bluefish.
	And there's no chat.
	There's no comment.
	Just a $50 trooper chat.
	Thank you very much.
	Okay, so the Navy's...
	The Navy's, the story that I read about 12 or however many being dismissed for refusing to take the Vax, good news for them, I guess.
	And they're not going to go after them for the cost of their training, for being dismissed for not taking the Vax, because I remember we talked about that a while back.
	Yeah, they backed off of that.
	Can we talk about, I mean, I put out a video on January 6th, the commemoration of the day that will live in infamy.
	And I mean, it's a good time just to do an update and a follow-up on what's been going on with the people who remain incarcerated.
	At the risk of asking the obvious, Robert, what's your impression of the commemoration in Congress of that day and the overall...
	I don't want to load the question with hyping it up.
	What's your impression of the commemoration that we saw last week on January 6th?
	Well, it's kind of parallel to the vaccine mandate hearings at the Supreme Court.
	You have the reality of the way things are actually shaping up if you look at the facts on the ground versus the narrative, the myth.
	That's being propagated by the press.
	And just as Sotomayor had this myth of everybody's dying and the kids are dying and all the rest, the mythical narrative of January 6th is still the insurrection that almost happened that has to be remedied that we should look at like the second coming of the Civil War in 9-11.
	And the reality is it's none of those things, of course.
	Nobody.
	Nobody's been charged with insurrection.
	There's more people filing frivolous lawsuits against everybody.
	More evidence that, in fact, Capitol Police, some of the other people that died that day, may not have been from natural causes.
	It may have been the Capitol Police killed them.
	And they covered it up.
	And thanks to the good work of Tom Fitton at Judicial Watch, they've used the Freedom of Information Act to uncover more and more evidence.
	Because there's 14,000 hours of video evidence the government's trying to hide from the world.
	Including from the defendants themselves.
	And it appears the reason for that is not only a lot of informants being part of the process, but that the Capitol Police behaved in a very illicit manner and was just violently bringing people in and beating the daylights out of them for kicks and giggles, effectively.
	Including women, older women, things like that.
	That now we're starting to find out why they hid and covered a lot of this up.
	That the only really violent people that day...
	We're actually the Capitol Police, not the people who are accused of being the insurrectionists.
	I'm going to post a link to the video that I put out on Jan 6, because for some reason, I don't blame algorithms.
	It was curious that it hit a certain immediate drop-off.
	But Joy Ann Reid tweeting out the New York Times reporting on this, ignoring the New York Times falsely claiming that Brian Sicknick was murdered, was killed by Trump supporters.
	And I don't blame them for getting it wrong.
	I blame them for getting it wrong when they knew it was wrong or questionable at the time.
	And running with the narratives that, you know, people were killed.
	And then when it turned out that they died of medical emergencies, people died.
	And then ultimately, we're finding out maybe someone else was killed by the police, but the only person that we know that was killed was point blank in the neck by a D.C. officer who's hailed as a hero.
	We've seen how they've weaponized the events for congressional hearings.
	To go after Bannon again, to ostensibly go after Tucker Carlson and others.
	Who have they now gotten in their targets for this congressional committee that seems to have limitless power to investigate for legislative purposes?
	So they've gone after liberal media people, conservative media people.
	Alex Jones is fighting it.
	A bunch of other people are fighting it.
	But their latest person is Sean Hannity.
	They're now going after Sean Hannity's private communications.
	So it shows what a complete political witch hunt it is.
	It has nothing to do with figuring out what happened in January 6th.
	For that, they should be asking, what do the feds know about QAnon?
	And where did QAnon come from?
	But they're not asking those questions.
	Not lovely Congresswoman Cheney or the rest.
	And so it's purely a political witch hunt on a grand scale to push a fake narrative that's just complete mythology that they're hoping they can abuse.
	Congressional power to achieve and attain.
	And we'll see whether the courts step in or not.
	But at some point, they should.
	Whether they will is an open question.
	And for anybody on the interwebs on Twitter, there was a picture circulating that was like all of the members of Congress holding candles on the steps, holding a vigil.
	And it sent that that might have been suggesting that that was a vigil for January 6th.
	It was a tweet on January 6th that went quasi-viral.
	I just did a reverse lookup for the image.
	And that image was not a commemoration for January 6th.
	It was a commemoration for the lives lost due to COVID, which may be just as egregiously politicized as January 6th.
	Just so you know, if you see that image and retweet it, thinking it makes a mockery of Congress for commemorating January 6th, different context, maybe just as egregious.
	But any news on Steve Bannon?
	Because we haven't heard anything since...
	Yeah, his trial apparently is scheduled, I think, for July 9th, if I saw that right.
	His freaking trial.
	Jury trial?
	In D.C.?
	Yeah.
	It's in D.C. Good luck finding an impartial jury in D.C. It will not be broadcast, or will it?
	Won't, because federal court.
	Okay.
	Alright, let's just see here.
	We've got some chats.
	The Navy kicked out 12 who were not SEALs over the VAX.
	Okay.
	Did that change anything?
	I think they're filing suit, too.
	But that Navy SEAL suit will help everybody else.
	Here's a question.
	Not a banned account.
	Nota.
	I'm joking.
	Why isn't the Supreme Court mentioning Korematsu versus U.S. or Hirobayashi versus U.S.?
	Our federal government has unlimited power against dangerous citizens.
	Yeah, I mean, they're not mentioning it because that's an embarrassment to them.
	That they did what they did.
	That's why.
	All right, I'll bring up some chats before we get into our next subject.
	Would you all help me sue the never-ending story for false advertisement?
	I believe you stole that joke, chain-breaking sage, from The Simpsons.
	Lionel Hutz said that in one of the episodes.
	If I'm not mistaken, then I'm not mistaken.
	Is the ongoing insurrection narrative a way to keep Trump off the presidential ballot?
	Well, you can see, I mean, that's partially probably why Trump is now suing the New York Attorney General, because the New York Attorney General just won't quit harassing him.
	And so brought suit on First Amendment and Fourth Amendment grounds, and to some degree Fifth Amendment grounds, that he's being deprived of due process, that he's being targeted for political reasons, that this is not a case of somebody following a criminal investigation.
	This is someone who kept promising, I'm going to use all of my power to harass my political opponents.
	And are the courts going to allow that to happen willy-nilly?
	It's not supposed to be the case.
	That's an abuse of prosecutorial power to target.
	Your political opponents for it.
	And this AG has admitted that's exactly what she's doing.
	The lawsuit goes through over 100 times that she has publicly admitted that's precisely what she's doing and what she's going to continue doing.
	For those of us, myself included, who are not familiar with this particular lawsuit, give us the overview.
	Trump is suing the Attorney General?
	Yes, the Attorney General of New York on the grounds that the two is enjoying future subpoenas and any other...
	Discovery action by the Attorney General on the grounds that what the Attorney General is doing is politically weaponizing her power for personal, political, partisan purposes, based on her own public statements to that effect.
	Logistically, on such a lawsuit of nature, I mean, how do you even hope to succeed on that?
	Because if hypothetically...
	The Attorney General discovered a legit cause for action, and you're basically asking the court to issue an injunction to prohibit conduct, which might be justified given a change in future circumstance.
	Nature-wise, I mean, how does that lawsuit even have a chance of success?
	It's really, it's to what degree do courts permit the constant, continuous harassment?
	The court can stop.
	Certain subpoenas for now without getting into any prospective subpoena.
	But what they want is, like, you have a prosecutor that's publicly saying, I'm going to weaponize all of my power to target someone politically.
	It's pretty rare that you've ever seen this.
	So there is supposed to be a judicial remedy to the civil rights violation.
	The question is whether the courts will step in or not, because they tried to avoid stepping in into these cases.
	And hypothetically, I know people are asking the question, how does an attorney general get removed from his or her position of power?
	Is it impeachment or is it election?
	It would be impeachment or election, yeah.
	She's not being good.
	They love it.
	She got elected on, hey, I'm going to weaponize this to target Trump.
	And everybody celebrated it.
	I won't read this one out loud.
	But I can appreciate the sentiment with the thorough, jagged red pill that I've taken through both, all orifices of my body, Stephen Cannon.
	And speaking of, let's go with the red pill that I'm familiar with, that I have had my eyes open to, from January 6th, exploitation, arguable potential, if it's not a setup, it's weaponizing, but it might even be a setup, Whitmer's kidnapping plot.
	Is still following more of the same that we've been covering for a while?
	I mean, I don't understand the new developments compared to the last developments.
	The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the indictment before the same judge who already sentenced Ty Garbin to six years in jail, alleging entrapment.
	Now, from what I understood from the article that you sent me, Robert, the latest developments are that they're going to argue for entrapment, and they've raised a bunch of text messages between FBI agents and the informants.
	Correspondence illustrating the fact that the FBI and the informants were the ones planting the seeds of this plot in the minds of people who, by all accounts, had neither the intention, the desire, nor the faculties to carry it out.
	And I think we're talking about an individual who they, I'm not saying this to make fun of anybody, people, who they've dubbed Captain Autism, who is supposed to be the mastermind of this plot, who by all accounts, by everyone's account, involved in this plot, obviously did not have the I just don't understand this new line of attack or new line of defense in the lawsuit compared to what they've already presented to the judge.
	Has the judge dismissed the motion to dismiss the indictment and this is the defense on the merits?
	What is the context of this argument of entrapment?
	It's just more facts and that the number two person they said that was really running the plan to kidnap was someone they internally joked about being Captain Autism.
	And their point being that this is not someone who's capable of coming up with a plot.
	And so it makes it even more absurd and a joke what the entire criminal prosecution is about at this stage.
	When the leader of it is someone their FBI agents themselves are joining in the joking about.
	So it's the FBI agent kept saying, hey, please do this.
	Please do this.
	Please do this.
	And they kept saying, no, no, no.
	And they decided, well, we'll get Captain Autism to do it.
	I mean, it's a crock.
	It's a crock.
	And just so everybody appreciates that, at one point, some of the alleged defendants, or no, there are defendants, some of the alleged...
	Kidnappers said, we're not comfortable with an offensive kidnapping.
	I mean, they have text messages of the defendants themselves saying, we don't want this.
	And then you've got text messages between the FBI and their informants saying, push it anyhow.
	We don't care.
	Don't let the facts get in the way of a good plot.
	Something along those lines.
	Who is going to ultimately adjudicate on this?
	The judge is going to dismiss the motion.
	The judge first and the jury.
	The judge is probably too much of a wuss to roll on it substantively.
	So it'll probably be up to the jury.
	I don't believe Bob Saget passed away.
	Now, I believe I know these memes when they come up in chats.
	Except for the one of Betty White.
	Everyone's like, rest in peace Sylvester Stallone or whatever.
	And then they said the same thing for Betty White and she actually passed away.
	Okay, so what's going on?
	Stop it.
	Stop it, people.
	Although, if you paid $5 for a meme, here you go.
	Enjoy it.
	Okay, so January 6th appears to be something of a...
	Let's not call it a setup, but it was exploited.
	It might have been a setup.
	The Whitmer plot might have been a setup, was definitely exploited, and we'll see where these things go.
	What does this segue us into naturally, Robert?
	You have a better mind than I do.
	Let's see.
	What would be a good segue?
	Let me get my screenshot.
	You know what?
	Let me segue into one of mine.
	We'll get to Canadian law for a second, people.
	Speaking of righteous indignation and anger, the vlog I put out today, which was Justin Trudeau, using terminology, which if you are a victim of an act, a deliberate act of a deliberate downing of a passenger airline, and you hear the leader of a free nation referring to it as a disaster, as a tragedy, and on the two-year anniversary, for those of you who don't know, January 8th, 2020.
	The Iranian regime downed a passenger airline flying out of Tehran Airport to Kiev.
	I think I'm saying it right.
	To Ukraine.
	Two missiles downed a passenger airline because they thought it was something else.
	Okay.
	For a month or for however long, the Iranian government refuses to give the black box to the Canadian government because there are 63 Canadians on the plane.
	I don't know why there were so many.
	Side issue.
	Canadian government on the two-year anniversary of the deliberate downing of a passenger airline commemorate all loss of life from aviation disasters.
	Aviation disasters have claimed too many lives and we will work together to increase the safety of air travel.
	And I said this is the most offensive bastardizing of language to minimize the loss of human life from a deliberate act to make it sound like it was an accident.
	To anybody who doesn't know, because you're two years out of it, some people genuinely don't know it was a deliberate act.
	Albeit a mistaken deliberate act, apparently.
	And I genuinely loathe my government.
	In a political sense, in the useful righteous indignation, people should know the truth so they can vote accordingly the next election.
	And if they continue to vote, that's what you get.
	That's my segue.
	Canadian law, Justin Trudeau, the most embarrassing national leader in the history of the country.
	And we'll leave it at that.
	Speaking of international law, Pfizer, who might be in the news for other reasons right now, had a lawsuit reinstated against them for literally aiding terrorists.
	They helped fund terrorism in Iraq.
	They said they were doing so to help provide needed medical goods, but they appear to have been doing so in ways that broke the law.
	And it was actually the D.C. Circuit reinstated the lawsuit against Pfizer for their activities.
	Just a little reminder, useful reminder, at who and what Pfizer really is.
	It was Pfizer and AstraZeneca.
	I think, how does it work?
	I mean, on a factual level, I don't know too much of the detail, but how do they get accused of funding terrorism?
	They're a pharmaceutical company.
	There's no question they did.
	The only question is whether they were legally permitted to do so.
	So they knowingly went into business.
	With various terror groups in Iraq, purportedly to facilitate medical products being distributed there.
	But bottom line is they helped fund them.
	And they had a range of excuses that the district court originally let them get out of jail for.
	But the D.C. Circuit reinstated the lawsuit.
	And so it'll be an interesting lawsuit to watch because basically it's a violation of various international legal standards.
	And they're doing business with known terrorist organizations who are buying their product with, I presume, known terrorist monies.
	The argument is going to be even the victims of terrorist regimes or the citizens within terrorist regimes need medicines, and so who else are we going to do with it?
	And by the way, it seems that Bob Saget death looks real, unfortunately, trending everywhere.
	TMZ reporting it as well.
	And now you just know everybody's collective conscience is going to say, You know people are going to ask the questions, and I'm not going to ask it, but everybody...
	What was the timing related to a certain...
	What was the timing?
	Did something happen?
	This is the reality.
	People die all the time.
	Look it up for Hank Aaron.
	Look it up for a lot of people.
	And the rumor was with Betty White, and then people come out and say, no, but here's the reality.
	Old people pass away, and the older you get, to quote our first movie reference...
	If Keith Richards suddenly drops dead, I'm going to say it's the vaccine.
	Okay, that's...
	Not to make light of it.
	I didn't know Bob Saget, not old.
	Not old enough.
	Okay, well, we'll look at that.
	Yeah, Marvin Hagler.
	That was another one.
	No, well, the problem is, and then, you know, I put out a tweet the other day.
	It's like, we're seeing one clip after another of soccer players having issues, and it's just a problem.
	Maybe these things happened before, and it's just...
	It's much higher.
	It's triple the rate of normalcy.
	The soccer stuff, even from what I've seen, is a higher rate.
	One explanation that I heard, by the way, from an expert, a medical expert, was that they're training increasingly harder now.
	They're playing more games.
	The sport now is more exerting on the heart than it was 10 years ago, so it only makes sense.
	More so than two years ago?
	And three years ago?
	He passed away in Florida.
	Okay.
	And now, Robert, speaking of another issue, what was it?
	I had a good segue from this one, which was trusting a company that you can't trust.
	Oh, gosh darn it.
	I got to go to our list.
	I've lost my mind.
	So hold on.
	Actually, no, you know, that was it.
	The reviving of the lawsuit.
	How did the lawsuit get dismissed and how does it get revived?
	And yeah, I mean, how did it get dismissed in the first place to get revived?
	And what was the term of revival?
	It was dismissed by the district court in the District of Columbia, and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reinstated it and said that they did state a legal claim that this is a kind of a fact issue for discovery in the jury, whether they broke the law or not.
	But just the mere fact that they could even be sued for such a thing tells you where Pfizer's moral compass is.
	Well, I just love the fact that it's dismissed and reinstated, but these are the same companies, people.
	It's not that I was corrected.
	It wasn't Pfizer that paid the biggest criminal penalty.
	It was Johnson& Johnson.
	But these are another one.
	But trust them.
	Trust your government, which has had decades of proven history of corruption and civil rights abuses and testing on its own citizens.
	Trust the pharmaceutical companies, which have the past, present, and future of what we've seen.
	And if you don't...
	You're the extremist.
	And then the other problem is there's drug addiction, there's depression, there's a lot of other stuff.
	So nobody's jumping on any...
	Because of a lot of the lockdowns.
	Well, that's another issue.
	And so, okay.
	And I'm not making light and I'm not making jokes.
	I'm just bringing up the chat.
	Speaking of lawsuits that were dismissed to be reinstated while I do this, I'm just going to scroll all the way down.
	Even at 15 second delay, Robert, the chat is...
	Out of control.
	We're almost at 12,000 people here, so this is going to happen.
	Oh, here.
	Jesus, who is Andy Pearson from the future?
	Okay, sorry.
	I'm not making light.
	I do not make light of tragedy.
	But thank you very much for the super chat.
	Andy, my goodness, Andy Pearson.
	We know you're going to be right on one of these predictions.
	Speaking of lawsuits that were dismissed on grounds that do not seem to be permanent, the Nirvana lawsuit.
	Nobody cares about this decision, Robert.
	Nobody cares about the lawsuit.
	Everyone's had enough of this guy.
	But nonetheless, it made the news.
	The lawsuit was dismissed.
	It was not dismissed on a motion to dismiss.
	It was not dismissed with prejudice.
	It was dismissed, apparently, because the plaintiff failed to respond to what I guess was what we call in Quebec a motion for particulars, a request for...
	I don't know what the term is in the States.
	The defense had asked for additional information on the plaintiff's claim.
	The plaintiff had a certain time frame within which to respond and didn't.
	And therefore, had their lawsuit dismissed.
	But the judge basically said, you have a second chance to respond to this request for information.
	And if you don't do it, it will be dismissed without prejudice, meaning they can still refile.
	Have I misunderstood the context?
	Yeah, I mean, in the states, the way that works, criminally, in criminal cases, you can do a motion for a bill of particulars.
	In the civil context, in most states, you have some old states that follow older rules.
	But in most states...
	How that works is you move to dismiss, and the court says, I'm going to let you amend to allege more facts that might allow you to survive a motion to dismiss.
	And that's what happened here.
	So the first complaint was dismissed, but with the permission to amend by a certain date to allege more facts that might survive a motion to dismiss.
	And then they just didn't do it.
	So the judge is still giving them the time to do so, but saying for now it's dismissed, but it's up to you to refile by the 13th, I think, the judge said, or the case is permanently dismissed.
	So we'll see if this was an accidental oversight or it's because they know they really don't have a case.
	I still think from when we discussed it before that they don't have a case.
	I saw a review which went over the details as to why.
	There's a good argument that they don't have a case on the merits, but even still, you presumably take it there, because I guess if it gets dismissed now, there might be cost or legal fee issues if you get dismissed on this basis.
	Like, if you get dismissed, you're not responding.
	Is there any sanction?
	Yeah, no.
	Okay.
	And the lawsuit is a doomed lawsuit.
	The guy's got the Nevermind tattooed on his chest.
	He's celebrated that image himself over and over again.
	He's made money off of it.
	He's made fame and notoriety off of it.
	The ultimate irony, some people said, was if he finds out it's not even him in that baby picture, because nobody can recognize the kid but for himself bringing it up as an adult.
	So the lawsuit is doomed to fail.
	He might have been hoping for a nuisance settlement, which by all accounts he's not going to get.
	But we'll see.
	So that's it.
	And it was dismissed.
	It's not a permanent dismissal.
	I read the articles.
	I didn't read the dismissal.
	They will remedy and not refile, but correct, and suit will continue.
	And we'll see where it goes.
	I love how...
	Okay, I believe...
	Oh, okay, Governor, another one who does that.
	I thought you were talking about Trudeau.
	Blames the driver for the I-95 thing, while others blame Yunkin.
	That's a special kind of stupid.
	He doesn't take office till the 15th.
	I haven't heard that, but...
	Yeah, there were a bunch of people that were blaming Youngkin for the big...
	There was like an eight-hour delay on the Virginia highways, not realizing that Youngkin wasn't even governor yet.
	The delays are what?
	They're not clearing snow?
	There was a massive accident, or they're just not clearing snow fast enough because of COVID?
	I think it was not clearing snow, but I don't know.
	I know the fact of the backup, but I don't know the why.
	All right, now, Robert, it's not on our list, but let's talk about it because it's very, very important.
	You had Fauci coming out, we mentioned it earlier, coming out and confirming.
	I want to imitate his New York accent, but that might get me into trouble.
	You get him coming out and saying, we're two years into this, and this is something that the conspiracy theorists of 2020 were saying from the get-go.
	A dude got killed on a motorcycle accident, I put this in the video.
	It was attributed as a COVID death.
	And you had people calling these people conspiracy theorists, moron, losers, whatever you want.
	And we are two years into this.
	And all of a sudden, you have Fauci acknowledging, not exactly in the same context, but in a different context, saying, we don't know there are children being hospitalized with or because of.
	We don't know because they don't do that breakdown.
	You have Hochul, the new governor of New York.
	I think it was her.
	It was her.
	Saying the exact same thing.
	You have the dude in Ontario who looks like Lennon.
	What's his name?
	What's his name?
	Kieran something or other.
	If anybody remembers, let me know.
	You have the doctor in Ontario saying the same thing.
	You have the doctor in Quebec.
	It's two years in.
	And we have our medical professionals and experts effectively confirming that they're idiots.
	Because if you don't know this one question two years in, you're idiots, liars, or corrupt criminals.
	Or any combination thereof.
	How does it happen, Robert?
	And what is going on now that this question is being asked by all people across nations at the same time?
	Well, I mean, what's disturbing in this light is that there's hospitals now considering denying medical care to children based on whether or not they're vaccinated, including emergency medical care.
	I mean, even though the vaccine has only been authorized, not fully approved ever.
	And that's subject to future litigation that's coming down.
	That we're to that point, which is just a different degree of insanity.
	And while they're admitting and acknowledging what they have to admit and acknowledge when the pressure gets high enough, they're still living off of, key decision makers are still living off of the lies, like Justice Sotomayor and others.
	And so hospital administrators.
	And so, I mean, what, you know, Robert Malone did that great detailed breakdown with Joe Rogan, and then YouTube removes it entirely.
	So it gives some sense for it.
	And you have new vaccine passports in Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, San Francisco, and L.A. You know, and a lot of these big cities are rolling them out.
	And I mean, now, it has led already to a lawsuit in New York.
	I know of people who are looking at lawsuits in every other one of those cities.
	I think a suit may have already been filed in LA.
	But, you know, you can't get basic services unless you have, well, my daughter in Tennessee, she decided to get vaccinated.
	That's her choice.
	But guess what image they put on her driver's license to let everybody know she's vaccinated?
	Tell me it's a yellow star, Robert, and we'll have a good laugh.
	Yes, it was actually a yellow star.
	That's the recommendation from DMV.
	I thought that couldn't be.
	I was like, oh my goodness.
	What the heck?
	Someone sent me an image to that effect or tagged me in an Instagram post.
	And look, I'm neurotic.
	I recognize the limits of my own technical abilities.
	I'm not a journalist.
	I think we're analysts.
	So I can't go and vet the authenticity of this.
	But I get these messages all the time.
	Someone sent me a sticker.
	It was a pin.
	Allegedly, that their kid got to show that they were vaccinated.
	A yellow star.
	A five-pointed star, not a six-pointed star.
	As if that's going to make a freaking difference to anyone with half a brain.
	But Robert, if you say it, I will believe you.
	Well, apparently teachers in classrooms are making unvaccinated people put stars or something on them to tell everybody they're not vaccinated.
	I mean, there's this extraordinary level of discrimination taking place all over the place.
	That's good news that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals revived the Tony Tipton suit.
	We'll probably break it down in more detail next week.
	Good.
	Just remember, I'm thinking of Tony Timpa, not Tony Tipton.
	What's Tony Tipton?
	I think I remember it, but I need to look at it to make sure I got the right suit.
	We'll talk about it next week.
	Robert, it's nuts.
	And another one that I can't vet, so I don't share it, but I've heard that in British Columbia, they're following suit from Quebec.
	Vaccine passport for alcohol and marijuana stores.
	And you know damn well what they're doing.
	This is not about policy anymore.
	This is about targeting the remaining demographic who may not be vaccinated.
	Double vaccinated.
	Look at Macron.
	Macron, the head of France, said he doesn't consider unvaccinated people citizens of France.
	Well, and I actually, I want to point out why that's fundamentally racist and might be true to French history.
	We know the demographics of who is likely to get vaccinated and likely to be resistant or reluctant.
	And given France's history vis-a-vis Algeria, vis-a-vis North Africa, vis-a-vis other countries and other citizens within their own country where you know that they might be more reluctant, statistically speaking, it's nothing shy of overt racism.
	And I said it when Trudeau was implementing it here.
	They know who they're targeting.
	And if they don't know who they're targeting, they're idiots.
	And if they do know who they're targeting, they're racist.
	So take your pick, take your poison, Macron.
	But we know darn well, when you say that, you cannot know who you're not targeting.
	And when you say you're there to make their lives hell, well, that would be true to French history in terms of what they've done over the last 50-plus years.
	But people are asking, Robert, what do you do and how do you...
	Let's make sure this doesn't get misinterpreted.
	How do you battle back in a legal sense?
	How do you...
	Combat this in a legal, lawful sense without turning yourself into a criminal, thus allowing the state to do whatever they want to do to you in the first place.
	What do you do?
	I think it's three ways.
	Fighting back in the court of public opinion.
	We have a record number of governments in the United States at the local and state level passing laws that are banning vaccine mandates for the first time ever.
	We have a record number of legislators and congressmen Even, you know, United States senators for the first time ever saying vaccine mandates are wrong in a particular context.
	First time it's ever happened in American history.
	And we're seeing many courts push back because they're listening to the court of public opinion.
	So the first place is the court of public opinion.
	The second place, and for anybody that's doubts about that, just go back and listen to the oral argument.
	Because that's all justice is all they're doing.
	Now they're picking which court of public opinion they're listening to, but it tells you how important politics, policy, And public opinion are to judges, even at the highest level, because that case was all about public opinion and almost little to none about the law.
	Public opinion comes first, law comes second.
	So influencing public opinion is critically important, and we have had the greatest success in history fighting back on these things.
	And then it's fighting back in the courts of law and using your legal remedies.
	Millions of Americans have used religious accommodations.
	That have been granted in one capacity or another.
	Just by the evidence that's coming out in these various court pleadings and proceedings.
	That most employers didn't try to do what Tyson Foods did, which was fire everybody, even who had a religious accommodation.
	Most did not.
	And those who did do that are facing extensive litigation related to it.
	And then third, vote with your dollar.
	Vote with your feet.
	That's what I've been telling people.
	Move out of blue states.
	I've been telling people that.
	From California for the last decade.
	It's like, I see where the state's going.
	And if you like liberty of any kind or simple rationality, you better get the heck out of this state.
	Only live here if you have to.
	And I think that's the same true of all the blue states.
	The blue states are, they're going to, the Supremes did hint that they're not going to interfere with state mandates.
	Now, that doesn't mean they won't.
	Require religious accommodations.
	I think they will ultimately require religious accommodations.
	But they did suggest in their comments at the oral argument that otherwise they're not going to have a problem with that mandate to the state level.
	So stay out of blue states if you can do so.
	At some point it's going to be the reality in Canada and it's only going to, it'll be easier for those with the means and much more difficult for those without the means.
	At some point, leave.
	Let it go bankrupt.
	Let it go crazy on its own.
	And let it do it in a way that absorbs the people who want to be there or choose to be there.
	And save yourself at some point.
	Not to be cryptic or cynical.
	But I'm going to bring up this chat.
	They're trying to remove the control group as a scapegoat for their evil.
	I mentioned that a while back.
	It's like, this is a fair argument.
	But getting back to the public opinion, Robert.
	I say this, and I'll say it over and over again.
	Never violence, because I genuinely believe they would relish a violent response.
	Just look at January 6th.
	January 6th wasn't even a real violent response, and they've parlayed it to great political profit.
	So, I mean, it's just, it's not a realistic fight you could win anyway, and it'll backfire against you quickly.
	So it's just a bad strategy, tactically, aside from moral issues with it.
	And reporters, journalists, people out there looking for inspiration.
	Categoric, no.
	Take January 6th and just apply it mutatis mutandis to someone goes and breaks windows downtown.
	Someone goes and accosts a politician because of their COVID mandates restrictions.
	You know what happens then?
	They'll do...
	Tenfold what they're doing with January 6th.
	Lockdowns, military in the street.
	It's almost what they want or they would not have a problem with it occurring because ultimately you won't do jack squat, you won't achieve the goal, but you will have achieved their goal.
	And so my solution?
	I don't think in Canada the courts are going to do anything.
	Public opinion.
	Mercilessly mock the idiot politicians for their idiot dictates.
	Closing stores on Sunday to battle COVID?
	Mock them.
	And mock them?
	For the gods that they think they are.
	And curfew from 10 to 5?
	Mock them.
	Having outlawed walking dogs during curfew, but only to retract it 24 hours later because of public pressure?
	Mock them.
	Because when the public sees the naked emperor, they're going to know that not only are they naked, but they're not attractive when they're naked.
	And mock them and mock them and mock them.
	Because anything in terms of real violence or real threats...
	It's exactly what they want.
	They'll exploit it the way they've exploited January 6th, the way they've weaponized incidents that they might have fabricated in the first place.
	So don't cave into that.
	Courts, if they're amenable.
	If they're not amenable, public mockery.
	What did Martinson say?
	He said, just talk to people and get them to awaken, in a sense.
	He said it much better than I did, and I wanted to find it.
	But that's how you do it.
	And it's a long process, because we've...
	Done a lot of damage.
	And it's going to take a lot of time to come back.
	But when the pendulum starts swinging back, it swings back fast.
	Well, I mean, as an example, Aaron Seary and Del Bigtree brought a lawsuit against the FDA to disclose under the Freedom of Information Act all the records related to the approval of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.
	And the FDA originally said they needed 55 years.
	And they said, hold on a second.
	We actually need 75 years.
	And the court said, nope, you got eight months.
	And you're going to have to disclose 55,000 pages of documents every month for the next eight months.
	And so that's going to be very helpful and revelatory.
	And so that's another way people are productively, constructively fighting back to get information and education out to the public so that you don't end up sounding as dumb and as idiotic.
	As a Supreme Court justice, like Sotomayor.
	And Jojo Meru, I don't delete comments and I don't censor them, unless it's an overt, true threat, in which case I'll flag it and let YouTube find the account.
	So if you've noticed that, it's not me, but thank you for the super chat.
	I won't read it.
	I don't want to get in trouble because we don't dispense medical advice.
	But thank you for the super chat.
	We're going to make their lives hell.
	Émerde is like turn to shit.
	I'm not swearing.
	That's just what émerde means.
	Because merde in French is shit.
	Okay, is it a coincidence that all of these measures are similar to...
	Robert, a lot of people don't appreciate...
	And maybe if you're comfortable with this historical segue, the transition, the slow scope creep, to use a modern term, of how Germany went from...
	What it was in, let's just say, early 30s to mid-30s or late 20s.
	Yeah, really, it's between 1929 was the turning point in Germany.
	Oh, hold on a second.
	I'm going to have to decline that call.
	Screenshot that.
	Oh, gosh, I've lost my screen.
	Are we still there?
	I'm still here.
	Sorry, I got a call.
	I have to go screenshot that number because I don't know where that number came from.
	Okay, I'll get it later.
	But yeah, sorry.
	I mean, really, frankly, this started in Britain and the U.S. The ideas for eugenics and social Darwinism were British and American ideas.
	And the Nazis were always cited British and American authorities.
	Particularly, like, I'm waiting for somebody in one of these vaccine mandate cases that gets up the SCOTUS to just go after them on this issue.
	To say, you know, like you the last time you got high and mighty on when you thought public health authorities should be completely deferred to was when you said three generations of imbeciles was enough in order to force sterilizations that became the law of the land for 50 years that led to force sterilizations of poor women all across the country.
	So maybe you should be a little bit more careful before you get up on your high horse about what you think medicine is, before you take off that black robe and put on that white lab coat and pretend that your professional class compadres are the ones who should dictate and direct public health policy in America.
	Because you have a long history of being atrocious at it, abominable at it.
	The ideas for eugenics came from America.
	The Nazis copied American laws and American policies and American principles.
	And their number one source of authority was the Supreme Court of the United States.
	And people should just go look into the history.
	Everybody thinks, I don't want to compare it to Nazi Germany.
	It's the easiest and most...
	It's the easiest example.
	It's the easiest one for people to distinguish.
	But people go crazy slowly and it doesn't happen overnight.
	But just people out there who think it doesn't happen in real time.
	Two years ago, it was two weeks to flatten the curve.
	And at the time we were there, Robert, there was like, they'll never make masks mandatory.
	They'll never make vaccination mandatory.
	And we are now in a situation.
	We're there making vaccination mandatory to go to the liquor store in Quebec.
	And I mentioned this on the Viva on the Street.
	The liquor stores remained open during the lockdowns because they were deemed to be essential services.
	And so when the government said, we're only going to require vaccine passports for non-essential services, and I said at the time, that makes no sense logically.
	It's only a matter of time.
	We're now in that matter of time.
	And if nobody can follow this transition to hell.
	You're willfully ignorant.
	You are mentally incapable of appreciating it.
	You're deliberately blind.
	Or it's just not affecting you, in which case you're fine.
	But by the way, it doesn't affect you until it affects you.
	And then when it affects you, it's too late.
	It's the old poem.
	At first they came for the labor union, but I wasn't a labor union.
	Then they came for me and there was no one left.
	I forget how it goes in between.
	Robert, in our last stream, did we talk about Project...
	Oh, that's right.
	We did talk about Project Veritas because I was a year behind on that vlog.
	Has there been...
	I mean, I know Project Veritas has some stuff coming up.
	Are you familiar with what O 'Keefe and Project Veritas has in line for the future?
	They say that this week they'll be releasing previously unseen materials that will further describe and disclose who Anthony Fauci really is.
	Beyond and above the excellent book by Bobby Kennedy with the real Anthony Fauci, which is fantastic, of course, highly recommend it.
	I also recommend the Robert Malone interview with Joe Rogan was so good that some people, even some mutual friends of ours, are still spinning around about it.
	Not to mention certain other people.
	Because it was so good.
	It was so effective.
	Because Malone does his best version of describing the sequence of events.
	And Rogan, to his credit, lets him do it without interfering or distracting or derailing it.
	And asks questions in a common sense way that gets the language out in an accessible manner.
	And so I think...
	But that's what Project Vera...
	I mean, credit to James O 'Keefe, who refuses to back down.
	Because most normal people...
	When the federal government comes after you, when the New York Times comes after you, when the President of the United States comes after you.
	I mean, a recent Rasmussen poll showed that a majority of Americans or more Americans see the FBI as Joe Biden's personal Stassi than they see them as a legitimate apolitical organization.
	That's how badly they've damaged their internal credibility.
	But that's what they've practically been.
	And what's James O 'Keefe's response?
	Sue, some more.
	Disclose some more.
	Investigate some more.
	Expose some more.
	So credit to James O 'Keefe for not backing down one iota.
	The bottom line is when they didn't break him when he was a kid in Louisiana, they were never going to break him.
	He learned the right lesson from what he deems to be not his only mistake, but a mistake.
	And it's an amazing thing.
	You make a mistake and some people come back.
	Weaker.
	Some people come back broken.
	And other people come back more strong and stubborn than ever before.
	And James O 'Keefe is...
	You know what?
	Love him or hate him, you have to love him.
	And if you don't...
	You have to respect him.
	Even if you disagree with him and don't like his politics or don't like what he exposes or don't like what he stands for, you have to respect people with a real backbone.
	And he is one of the rare Americans with a real backbone.
	People criticize him.
	One of my only criticisms of O 'Keefe was one of his undercover pieces where maybe it didn't prove the point.
	It was sort of a stretch to get to the point that he wanted to get to, asking the wrong people questions.
	It was the one where he went undercover to those...
	At the time, they had set up street blockades for vaccine testing.
	He was asking someone who might not know the answer to a question and then making more of the answer than he could.
	Other people out there saying it's creative editing, deceptive editing.
	Well, first of all...
	If you have not seen a mainstream media edited piece on 60 Minutes or wherever else, you don't know what deceptive editing is.
	You need to edit things to cut out the dead airspace, to get to the point so you don't bore people to sleep.
	I don't know of any meaningful example other than maybe the argument of the Acorn case way back in the day.
	If he's made mistakes, he's learned from them, both good and bad.
	And yeah, it's chutzpah.
	The other irony with all this is I don't think any of us would have ever known fully about the Joe Biden's daughter's diary, but for the feds going after him for these purposes.
	And because he fought back.
	I mean, I think they thought they would back him off and silence him and get him to redirect his activities because that's what they're used to.
	And they don't understand people who don't respond or react that way.
	They can't comprehend it, can't conceive of it.
	Yeah, we got to talk about Tim Pool swatting because it's an interesting one.
	I just want to get one chat.
	And we got a good NRA case being brought against the state of California that wants to rat out your information.
	And we have a great NFL case that's funny.
	Okay, cool.
	We're going to get there.
	And Andy Pearson, I appreciate the support.
	I don't like feeling like I'm exploiting people ever, period.
	So I thank you very much for your generosity.
	But don't feel compelled to do it, and I don't want anyone ever supporting us with money that they cannot do.
	It's kind of opposite the Nick Riccato approach.
	I have a guilty conscience, Robert.
	I don't want anyone, if you're going to feel a ding from a Super Chat, I don't want it.
	Share it before Super Chatting and feeling a ding.
	The swatting incident, Robert.
	And I'm sitting in my house, and I'm saying, like, my goodness, I don't think we have this problem in Canada as much as it exists in the States.
	Primarily because, first of all, I've got neighbors.
	If there was an issue, and if they're not getting calls from all the neighbors, probably not a real issue.
	I've been the victim of swatting.
	Look, we don't need to tell people it's a federal felony.
	It's a felony offense.
	But when you call in to the cops and you say something's going down, do you not have to give your cell number and your name, or would they accept anonymous for the purposes of invading?
	They should.
	And they should require disclosure of identity.
	But here's what they're supposed to do legally.
	Let's say the person calls in anonymously.
	Blocked phone number.
	Then what could happen?
	Before they go do a raid, they have to show up and confirm.
	If it was an anonymous tip, that's not enough to do a raid.
	You need to confirm something on site.
	So I was at a client's party in the Hollywood Hills.
	That was the first mistake.
	Don't go to a client's party.
	Don't go to any party in Hollywood Hills.
	But I was at the client's party in Hollywood Hills and he threw these big fun parties and this screenwriter who wrote some great screenplay like 30 years before and then never did anything after lived right below him.
	And it used to drive him crazy that this young because my client was a young kid in his early 30s that this kid was having fun parties while nobody cared about this ex-famous screenwriter.
	So he had constantly tried to get the guy swatted.
	But this time it worked on a July 4th weekend.
	And it's because all the Hollywood Hills cops, who works on a July 4th weekend in Hollywood?
	It's the cops that are, you know, gung-ho, ready to rock and roll.
	And they think, hey, we got a big house in Hollywood Hills.
	My client lived in the house that Shirley Temple owned, Jodie Foster owned.
	She left behind some interesting things, but that's another story.
	Speaking of Ashley Biden's diaries.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But they're thinking, oh, it's going to be a big famous case.
	So I'm sitting there just chilling, smoking a cigar in the back of the house.
	And all of a sudden I see a bunch of cops with guns running both sides around the house and two helicopters with lights flashing into the house.
	I'm like, what the heck?
	And my client says, oh yeah, it's probably the guy down the street.
	He does this every time I have a party.
	But this is the first time it's been this big.
	And he was one of these hardcore fight the system guys.
	And then a lot of his friends, let's just say they had alternative products on them that weren't necessarily legally sanctioned at the time.
	So, massive raid.
	So, I agree.
	I negotiate with him.
	I said, I'll come out.
	Let's talk before everybody goes crazy.
	Because my clients are like, we're ready to take down the man, all that kind of thing.
	So, I go out out back.
	They throw me down right away.
	They tell me everything's going to be cool.
	Grab me.
	Throw me down.
	Handcuff me.
	I got big wrists.
	And so they put the handcuffs as tight as possible.
	And there's a bunch of these guys that are just gung-ho, ready to rock and roll.
	And I meet the sergeant, and I ask the sergeant, what's your basis?
	And he's like, we've got an anonymous tip that there's been a shooting and somebody's dead.
	I'm like, nobody's dead.
	There's been no shooting.
	And I was like, number one, I was like, number two, now that you're here, you can tell there's nobody that could make that call.
	From another house that could be telling you the truth because the houses are too distant.
	So I was like, now you know you don't have a legal authority to go in there.
	And I was like, if we want to negotiate, we can negotiate.
	Everybody be cool.
	Everybody be chill.
	And the sergeant says, okay, just let me walk through real quick.
	Make sure there's no dead body so I don't look like an idiot tomorrow in the news.
	And I won't search anything.
	I won't search anybody.
	I won't say anything to anybody.
	Everybody be cool.
	And he had to calm down his gung-ho guys.
	They're like, why would anybody who's innocent be bothered by somebody searching their house?
	And I remember telling the cop, well, you know, some people take their Fourth Amendment rights still seriously in America.
	So for whatever reason, I have a way to...
	I mean, I probably shouldn't have talked back to a sergeant who could have whacked me over the head, but I did.
	So he went through.
	Everybody was cool.
	Everybody was fine.
	So this sounds like we've been to Tim Pool's place.
	There's no way somebody could have called in that call.
	From another property and had adequate or accurate information, which means the cops should not have gone in at all.
	Now, maybe they didn't.
	I don't know if they didn't go in.
	Maybe they just knocked on the door.
	Knocking on the door is fine.
	But they should have known as soon as they showed up that whoever gave them the call gave them a bogus call because they couldn't have been within earshot of whatever they claimed they saw or heard.
	Yeah, and that's a fair point.
	We were there without disclosing too much.
	You would have to be in that property or by the front door to have knowledge of that.
	Tim's serious about being back in the woods.
	It's back in the woods, brother.
	It's an amazing thing.
	You have to know.
	And by the way, for anybody who's wondering how Robert's wrists could be so big, we look the same on screen.
	I might even look bigger than Robert.
	I'm a full foot shorter than Robert.
	Robert, you're 6 '2", 6 '3"?
	Yeah.
	And I've always had real big risks.
	My fingers can't cross them.
	And I'm not a Robert B. Reich short guy.
	I'm 5 '5", maybe 5 '6", on a good day.
	And I've got big Polish bones.
	With the hair, you might be 5 '8".
	Oh, easy, easy.
	If I streak it up like I did in high school.
	Swatting, is it a specific felony offense?
	They've made it.
	In some states, they have specific state crimes for it, because for those people that don't know what that is, or some people that still don't know what that is, you can probably describe it for them, what swatting is.
	Oh, swatting is, I believe, calling in the police and telling them that a murder or something serious has occurred at a property, and then indicating that the cops should go there to bust down the door and prevent an emergency situation.
	Typically, it involves...
	A fatal shooting or a hostage situation so that emergency is required so that no time can be had to verify information.
	I don't know.
	I don't think it happens in Canada, period.
	Or if it does, by no means with the same veracity that it's been known to happen in the States with Daniel Shaver.
	Too busy arresting pastors on the highway for trying to preach during COVID.
	What did I just do here?
	I can't see the screen anymore.
	I'm going to go back here.
	Boom.
	Okay, hold on.
	Dominic Black, people need to know about this.
	On the topic of weapons charges, Robert, Dominic Black pleaded, he struck a plea deal, $2,000 fine, all charges dropped.
	I mean, it's an obvious thing.
	I don't even know what $2,000 fine is.
	Great outcome for the kid.
	Probably what should have always happened because the gun charge was ludicrous against him.
	But it shows, you know, Little Binger just folded it, just, you know, gave up.
	But great for Dominic Black because he was a good-hearted kid who never should have been criminally prosecuted in the first place.
	Some people are going to say, like with the McCloskeys, pleading guilty itself to anything is a problem if you're innocent.
	What's the $2,000 fine for?
	What is the ultimate guilt?
	My understanding is it's basically the equivalent of a citation, is my understanding.
	I haven't seen the legal documents, so I can't confirm that, but that's my understanding.
	And so the kid gets his life back now, and it seems like a logical outcome.
	I don't know.
	Chat, let us know.
	Does he have any long-term consequences?
	Can he continue to own firearms?
	Is he a convicted felon, or is this a misdemeanor citation?
	Yeah, I'm pretty sure he's not a convicted felon.
	But by all accounts, it seems to be beyond a slap on the wrist.
	It's like, yeah, you would have paid the $2,000 to avoid having gone to court in the first place.
	Yeah, fluffer boy Witten.
	Went back and found his pillows instead.
	Okay, here we go.
	We got some red coat leader says, the caller had claimed he was in Poole's house, had done very bad things, and was threatening very bad things.
	Right.
	And the problem is, well, two things.
	You know from the call, they should be able to trace the call.
	So they know whether the call was inside the house or not.
	And that's where they have a duty of confirmation.
	Anonymous tips are not enough to exercise Fourth Amendment search power.
	You know, and cops know this at some level.
	Now, maybe they didn't raid the house.
	Maybe they just knocked downstairs.
	But if they raided the house, Tim Pool's got a legitimate Fourth Amendment claim because it doesn't take a lot of effort to trace the call and realize the call didn't come from there.
	And by the way, Robert said duty.
	My ears, I swear to you, I cannot hear the word without my ears perking up.
	Yeah, no, and Viva, I've been swatted.
	Then the other thing is, Robert, not legal advice, practical advice.
	I just like to think, if I'm getting swatted, what do I do?
	Do I just lie down on the floor and say, come in, I'm on the ground, my hand's behind my back?
	What do you do to absolutely avoid triggering a negative consequence?
	Not professional advice, not legal advice.
	Ideally, you negotiate with them before they come in.
	That was my experience.
	Because normally, there's going to be somebody on site that knows what they're supposed to do.
	But to the extent, but if they actually just come bashing in like, you know, National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, you know, when they came swinging in the windows and everything else, then you just, you know, yes.
	The last protocol is to keep your hands up, everybody chill, don't move, wait for people to calm down, chill out.
	You know, I had clients that used, the other problem is people in the name of police used to raid people's houses for robbery purposes.
	And they would come in as fake police.
	And so I had a client in Oakland.
	He was maybe in the alternative product distribution business.
	The ABB.
	Yeah.
	They banged through the house.
	And he came out.
	It was actually cops.
	But he was like, hey, I'm cool once I'm sure you're actually cops.
	But there's a long history of people getting their houses raided.
	In certain communities, disguised as police officers.
	So that's the other tricky factor you have to deal with in all this.
	By the way, they said they went through his house while he was...
	I saw it and Tim Poole was talking while they were walking through.
	My issue is, if anybody has not seen or heard of the Daniel Shaver incident, when you're dealing with sociopathic SWAT dudes...
	There's little, like, I would be paralyzed in fear, and I would just, I'd like to think I would do nothing, and then if something happened, good, it'll be clear evidence, but sometimes there's nothing you can't do to avoid escalating to someone who's got a gun and wants to escalate.
	Yeah, and it was good for Poole, his place is structured the way he is, so that it was going to take him a while to get up to where he was at.
	So it's interesting.
	Very interesting story.
	It happened to be right after he had interviewed Marjorie Taylor Greene, who may not have come off as the radical nutcase idiot extremist that the mainstream media has been depicting her as.
	I won't get into my assessment of her performance.
	I don't think she's...
	She didn't come off as crazy.
	I'll say that much.
	Oh, that was a good point by Pete Hill.
	So all Dominic Black pled to was a civil ordinance violation.
	So the equivalent of a traffic.
	Traffic ticket.
	Fantastic.
	Can you imagine Little Binger spent all that time and money going after Kyle and going after these kids?
	No, no.
	They should go after Binger, who apparently, according to Alita's internal sources, Alita being legal bites, he was not pointing.
	When he had the finger on the trigger, he was not pointing it at the jury.
	It was off to the side.
	No felony charges against Binger.
	Robert, okay, so...
	Let's get to the one that I'm not sure I even understand, because it sounds like an absolute, egregiously over-the-top, frivolous lawsuit.
	The class-action lawsuit against the New York Giants.
	And the New York Jets.
	And the New York Jets, who apparently...
	I don't pay attention to this, I don't watch organized sports, but apparently they've moved out of New York and are playing in a stadium that's built on a cheap New Jersey landfill.
	And the argument is that...
	They should not be able to call themselves the New York Giants and the New York Jets if they're playing out of a cheap, crappy stadium built on a landfill in New Jersey.
	And there's a class action lawsuit or an aspiring class action lawsuit of an individual who says he's now got to travel four hours to and from a game to watch the New York Giants and the New York Jets, but it's in New Jersey.
	Pain, suffering, anguish, and it's a $6 billion class action lawsuit.
	Have I missed anything of the essence?
	And go on and tell me why this is not the most idiotic thing I've read all week.
	It's a classic kind of New Yorker complaint about New Jersey.
	And so it's fascinating because, I mean, it's kind of a PR suit.
	I mean, I don't think the RICO claims are going to work.
	But it's saying, you know, only if your stadium has to be in New York.
	If you're going to call yourself a New York football team.
	But it's funny the stuff the guy goes through.
	He's like, the crap I have to deal with on the subway, traveling through New Jersey, the people you have to deal with in New Jersey.
	I mean, it's this long New York City complaint about Jersey.
	You know, it's like the old cabbie joke you see in movies.
	Go back to Jersey, you moron.
	That kind of routine.
	So it's a long litany of complaints that I don't think have much legal merit.
	But I think it reminded me of one of my other most fun lawsuits, which was a criminal defendant who requested a court order-specific performance.
	And it was for the six people he blamed for locking him up to pucker up and kiss his posterior.
	He wanted them...
	That specific performance.
	Of course, he put it in more crude language, but that was the title of the motion.
	The title of the motion was Motion for Governor and this person and this person and this person to kiss my ass.
	But he said, I'm asking for it as a specific method of equitable relief.
	So, you know, so it was of the same vein, this classic New Yorker rant against dealing with New Jersey.
	And I do, I know, I mean, everything I know of...
	America might have come from the Simpsons at one point in time.
	So it's a class action lawsuit about the damages he sustained because the New York Jets...
	Six billion dollars.
	They need other people to join the suit.
	But it reminds me, Robert, of a discussion we missed on one of our Sunday streams, which was the lawsuit about one of the teams leaving a city and then getting sued by the other...
	I'm going to screw everything up because it's been so long.
	The NFL ended up settling.
	They paid close to a billion dollars.
	Okay, so explain it because I think I've even forgotten the facts that I read in the articles at the time.
	What was the deal of that lawsuit?
	So fundamentally, the St. Louis Rams left and went to L.A. And the city and the county of St. Louis sued under the theory that the NFL's own rules protected them as a third-party beneficiary.
	It was a real stretch of a lawsuit, legally.
	But politically, what judge was going to rule against the city and the county when they're all ticked off about what the St. Louis Rams did, which was promise a lot of things to the city of St. Louis, then disappear and hop to L.A. for a better deal.
	Because the owner is married into big money and is a big real estate guy.
	And basically, he cared mostly about the Rams as a real estate transaction.
	The more they did football.
	The NFL's own internal rules appear to prohibit the Rams from doing what they did in the way that they did it.
	But the question wasn't that for the NFL's purposes, not for the benefit of the city and county of St. Louis.
	But what they were able to do is get friendly judges who ordered invasive discovery.
	And all these NFL owners don't want to disclose a lot of things about their finances, which are often a black box, even to the NFL Players Union.
	And so when all that discovery was on the cusp of having to be turned over, All of a sudden, the NFL came in and wrote a huge check, close to a billion dollars.
	That's amazing.
	For my own personal benefit, what's the deal in the States where they say that the football teams are playing in stadiums that are subsidized by taxpayer dollars in terms of being billed with taxpayer dollars, so they don't have to buy the stadiums, they don't have to build any of the infrastructure, they just get to exploit it.
	What is the deal with that, for those who don't know?
	Oh, that's often the case.
	Like, I'm looking at suing the Raiders because the Raiders refused to allow ticket holders to go to any game this year if they did not have the vaccine.
	Even people who had a medical accommodation.
	Medically, they couldn't take the vaccine.
	Those people were also excluded from the stadium.
	And I'm looking at suing, and when you figure out who to sue, you figure out that the stadium is kind of owned partially by the state.
	And kind of owned partially by the city and the county.
	And kind of partially owned by the Raiders.
	So you have a lot of these dynamics.
	And they do it this way.
	So the bond funds are government bond funds frequently.
	So they get all kinds of tax abatements and discount deals.
	And there's been long-term economic studies that have shown these deals done for private stadiums, for private teams.
	Do not make money for the city or count.
	Just like the sweetheart tax deals all these states give.
	You know, the Amazons of the world and the Fords of the world and everybody else who get states to lobby against each other and give a big tax abatement.
	It almost never pays off long term.
	Robert, my phone is dead, so I can't even go to get the other subjects on our list.
	But we don't need a romantic segue.
	What else are we supposed to talk about tonight?
	While you do that, someone did say...
	You're a white Uncle Phil from the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.
	And now I see it, and I don't think I can see it, Robert.
	That first comparison was made when I appeared on Dave Rubin, who's now moved to Florida, has escaped California himself.
	Speaking of California, though, the state of California has decided that as part of the regulations for you to get a gun, you give a lot of personal, private information.
	The implicit promise is that information will not be used for any purpose other than state regulatory purposes.
	But the state of California has now passed a new law that says they can take all that information and give it to certain third parties, including universities.
	So NRA has brought a suit noting this violates the right to due process.
	It's also an ex post facto law because it's being applied after.
	Originally gave your information.
	Yeah.
	And probably violates other statutory and constitutional provisions as well, but particularly right to privacy, which is underappreciated, which includes if I give my information to the state, and there's an implicit assumption that that information will not go everywhere, like my tax records, for example.
	The state cannot turn around and just disclose it to whomever they want on the theory that, well, now we have it.
	And so the NRA brought suit this past week on those grounds, which is a good suit, but it tells you where the left is going in the country, just in general.
	No, and in Canada too, which was downloading the app for COVID, which at the time I said, I don't trust the security.
	Warranties and representations.
	And then lo and behold, we find out the government, however they've been doing it, has been spying on 33 million devices in Canada.
	I don't know how those could all be Canadian because we only have 35 million citizens, let alone devices.
	But then the rumors are unsubstantiated.
	Rumors, people, I'm not stating this as fact, that if you have downloaded the app and you have the app on your phone and you are required to show vaccine passports for certain things, if you don't show it...
	They might be able to disable your phone.
	Now, that might be false, but it's conceptually plausible.
	And once the state has violated your trust on fundamental issues, once a fool, shame on me, twice a fool, and it's a messed up George W. Bush explanation, which is phenomenal.
	But I have to bring in A.J. Cook.
	Shameless plug.
	Check out my article in National File.
	I have video that shows that, aside from isolated instigators, mob violence only started with unprovoked LTL.
	What's LTL?
	What's LTL?
	Grenade.
	Lethal law.
	What's LTL, people?
	I don't know.
	Grenade assault that killed an innocent.
	And AJ Cook.
	I'm curious as to whether or not you are the individual who...
	Do we know who AJ Cook is, Robert?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, he's a reporter and a writer.
	But is he the one, anything to do with the Revolver article or nothing to do with the Revolver article?
	I don't think he wrote the Revolver article, but he's been covering the same topic pretty good.
	I'm screenshotting National File.
	Okay.
	Oh, and I know National File, I believe.
	I believe National File may have published the Ashley Biden diary, if I'm not mistaken.
	Yes, yes, I believe so.
	I believe it's Tom Pappert.
	Screenshotted.
	I'll message you.
	We might have an interesting sidebar coming up.
	And then we've got Beavis Wallace, who we haven't seen in a while, says, from McAllen, Texas, please discuss border lawsuits from property damage caused by Brandon's...
	I don't know who Brandon is, sir.
	I know who Joe Biden is.
	Robert, are you able to field this one?
	I can't field it.
	We'll cover that next week.
	I have to look into that.
	The other cases included Amazon is being sued because the way in which they approached COVID-19.
	Violated the biometric privacy laws of the state of Illinois.
	And a federal court said that lawsuit can go forward this week.
	So that was a big suit to reinforce biometric privacy restraints.
	A lot of employers are forgetting these laws exist in some states.
	Oh, we should get to Ghislaine Maxwell too.
	We'll get to Ghislaine Maxwell.
	But the biometrics law.
	Now, Robert, the only reason I know of the biometric laws of Illinois was because of another class action lawsuit.
	I forget against which big tech giant.
	I think it was Facebook.
	Which states have biometric laws in effect?
	I don't know currently.
	I know Illinois is the leading one.
	I think there are about eight states that have it, but I haven't checked more recently.
	And the biometric laws are basically, if I'm not oversimplifying it, it's that it's personal identifying information based on physical attributes, pictures, things you've uploaded to the interwebs.
	Page checks, things like that.
	I mean, the future is they want, you know, little chips in you.
	God's honest truth.
	But in the interim, it's taking certain distinction, things about your eyes, your face, things like basically biological measurements that are unique to you.
	And that can cover a lot more than that.
	But it appears that's precisely what Amazon was violating.
	They were doing like some sort of face check thing.
	And then they were storing the data and then sharing it in ways that violated Illinois law.
	Robert, I'm going to bring this up.
	Past Time Air, which looks like an actual legit channel based on small aviation.
	My wife is not vaxxed, is a not-vaxxed schoolteacher in a county in Florida.
	And if COVID, they are forcing time off unpaid.
	What can I do?
	If you have a religious or medical accommodation, I think that's discrimination and violation of the law, including, I think, a violation of Florida law at this point, but definitely a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
	I also think a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the state analog versions of that, which almost every state has their own version of the Civil Rights Act and the ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act.
	Not that I've been looking into this for my own personal reasons.
	Florida...
	People think of Florida as a sanctuary state at large.
	Can you explain if you know how it works in Florida?
	You have within the state, which has anti-mandate policies.
	Nonetheless, you have districts which themselves can impose mandates.
	Can you explain to people out there, I'm listening with open ears, how that works in Florida?
	People have a perception, but the reality might be a little different.
	It's because of what courts are doing.
	So the governor and the state legislature are trying to stop anybody from imposing mandates.
	But various federal courts, sometimes state courts, are intervening and saying, no, you state governor, you state legislature can't do this.
	And so that's been the only hurdle.
	Because you have a majority support at the governor's level and at the state legislative level.
	Now, the Attorney General doesn't want to support these laws, but they have reluctantly come around to it, even because the Attorney General's, I think, a Democrat there in Florida.
	But that's the main hurdle.
	The main hurdle has been judges who disagree with the state and sometimes letting local governments do what they want, and so it's been a constant struggle, constant battle.
	But if you live in a liberal Democratic area, they're trying to impose things.
	Now, most of the liberal Democratic efforts have failed.
	City of Gainesville, other places, as an example.
	Their vaccine mandates have lost in court.
	And mask mandates, too, in some cases.
	But the cruise lines won because they got the federal courts on their side.
	So that's the sort of real hurdle.
	Same in Texas, that you have some local governments trying to do things, and the Texas state courts sometimes come to their rescue, sometimes don't.
	Federal courts sometimes intervene, sometimes don't.
	That's really where the hurdle has been.
	And another question which may or may not be for my own personal benefit, you know, Florida, Texas, Tennessee, all of the states that are bastions of freedom to the rest of the imprisoned world.
	A lot of people say they're just one election away from replacing a DeSantis with a Whitmer.
	And what's the...
	And without...
	Undermining election fortification.
	They're one election away from replacing a DeSantis with a Brandon.
	What's the reassurance or response to that type of concern?
	I think Florida is moving to the right.
	And so I don't see that happening in Florida.
	Texas is...
	Despite the way the different immigration patterns are happening.
	And here's why.
	In Florida, though it's different groups.
	In Florida, it's Puerto Ricans and Venezuelans and Cubans.
	In Texas, it's Mexican-Americans.
	But it's the same reason why Nevada might swing to the right in 2022.
	Those groups are trending right.
	And some of the people moving into these states.
	Are right-leaning voters, not left-leaning voters.
	And so the net effect of that is it's not likely for Florida or Texas to move.
	Tennessee's not moving anywhere anytime soon.
	And that's a plus 20 Trump state.
	So they're going to have to change everything about the state.
	That's just not going to happen in Tennessee.
	So there's no chance of that happening in Tennessee.
	There's only a small chance of that happening in Florida or Texas.
	All right, and then I guess we have to talk about Ghislaine Maxwell, because there have been some developments from a juror who lied to get on the jury.
	It says they forgot.
	Forgot that they were abused.
	I spat up a little bit as I said that tongue-in-cheek.
	Yes, the juror apparently failed to disclose apparent childhood abuse, which became known because after, I don't know, how did the juror get publicly identified?
	To my knowledge, the prosecution came forward with this information.
	Apparently, the juror disclosed it maybe in some interview.
	Okay.
	That the juror was apparently, potentially, abused of a very specific nature as a child or as a young individual and then failed to mention it in the jury application.
	Specifically said no on the juror questionnaire.
	So, it's one of two things.
	Either the juror lied when they checked that box off because it's not the type of thing you forget, or the juror lied in an interview previously, which may have been the lie and the truth might have been the no, but causes some questions.
	Robert, so how does that translate into any...
	We're beyond jury intervention.
	What might happen now?
	So, here's what I think should happen, and then here's what I think will happen.
	What I think should happen is you're constitutionally entitled to 12 impartial jurors.
	If you get one partial juror, then that trial should be set aside.
	And the only consequence is a retrial.
	It's not like you get to go away scot-free.
	But you should be entitled to a retrial because you should never be convicted in America unless it's by 12 impartial jurors.
	And it doesn't matter how the one juror impacted the others or anything else.
	It's because your right is to 12 impartial jurors, not 11, not 10, not 9, 12. And in my view, this juror made a statement that was material enough for them to even ask about in the jury questionnaire in the first place.
	It denied the defense the ability to meaningfully exercise their peremptory strikes because this juror lied.
	I get he forgot or whatever.
	You forget it.
	No, you don't forget about it.
	So what else did he forget about jury instructions, too, when he was in the jury deliberation room?
	I mean, it's a false statement, materially false statement, that if it was to the government's detriment, he'd be prosecuted for.
	Because it was to the government's benefit, he won't be prosecuted, of course.
	So that's what should happen.
	Good logic did a good breakdown on this.
	And here's why likely nothing will happen.
	One, Ghislaine Maxwell is a hated defendant.
	And hated defendants don't get.
	Constitutional rights, practically speaking, in America and not historically.
	Second, our Supreme Court has neutered the constitutional requirement of a jury trial.
	So they have said so far that it's only if the juror made a false statement and the false statement is grounds for cause.
	Not whether it was grounds for a peremptory strike, but grounds for cause.
	Explain that distinction because I don't think I understand it.
	So you can request a judge remove a prospective juror on the grounds that their answers make them impossible, incapable of being a fair jury.
	Realistically, that's an impossible standard to meet nine times out of ten.
	If a judge denies your request to strike for cause, you're almost never going to win on appeal.
	So that's why my view is it should be whether or not the information is such that a defense counsel would have used it to exercise a peremptory strike.
	Because, again, that's the point of the peremptory strikes in the first place.
	So given that combination, but what the Supreme Court has said is it's got to be for cause, and it's got to be material.
	It was clearly material, no question here.
	So the only question becomes, would this judge, knowing that information, that he had been a prior abuse victim, would this judge have...
	Struck him for cause.
	The judge is going to say no, and so there won't be any overturning of the verdict.
	The key point that good logic made was not only the Supreme Court law on this and the split between the circuits, because the courts of appeals can't agree on this.
	They have different interpretations of what the Supreme Court meant.
	In my view, they should go back to original principles, 12 impartial jurors.
	That's what everybody's entitled to, no matter who they are, liked, disliked, hated, otherwise.
	They haven't consistently adjudicated that way.
	And then the other very good point, second key point, good logic made, is to look at the sociological aspect of law.
	And what that is, is how many times has the Second Circuit ever overturned a verdict based on a juror lying to get on the jury?
	I'm going to say zero.
	Yeah.
	Zero.
	So that tells you how often they actually care about jury trial impartiality in America.
	I want to tell you one thing.
	I just ran up to get this dog.
	The mess that I saw in Pudge's bed, I don't know what she got into, but it didn't look good, which means that the poop tomorrow morning is also going to look exponentially bad.
	And this dog smells of something that's not dog food.
	So bottom line, it's going to be like another, which one?
	It was Roger Stone where we had a juror who had posted a bunch of Facebook stuff and nothing.
	Outrage for two days, then nothing.
	And that's in a case where the defendant is not an alleged trafficker of underage individuals.
	So I guess we expect nothing to happen.
	I saw some outlets saying this might throw the entire case out.
	We will reasonably predict nothing.
	I think it should, but I don't think it will.
	Okay.
	So everyone appreciates the idea of if you have one dissenting juror versus Six dissenting jurors, the outcome is the same.
	It's a hung jury.
	So that's why the idea of 12 impartial as opposed to 11, because if you have one that's not impartial, well, you're no longer dealing with that which is required for a constitutional conviction.
	Okay, so we got to Glenn Maxwell.
	We got Winston in the house.
	He smells foul.
	I don't know what.
	Look at him.
	He's looking for something.
	Bad, sir.
	Okay.
	What else do we have?
	Did we miss anything, Robert?
	The tennis star, Djokovic.
	I have no idea what's going on.
	I saw an interview where he seemed to have been justifying or talking about vaccine mandates.
	I have no idea, Robert.
	So fill the crowd in for those who don't know Djokovic, what's going on and what the discussion is.
	So he's a great tennis player.
	Who was supposed to participate in the Australian Open, was told he had, he said he didn't need the vaccine because he already had had COVID.
	And he was given a vaccine exemption to appear.
	And then when he got there, Australian officials arrested him and tried to deport him.
	On the grounds that natural immunity was not an exception, even though their own government had previously given him one.
	Trust the science.
	Trust the science people.
	Yes.
	Exactly.
	And so he's fighting it in the Australian courts.
	I think there's a hearing Monday on whether or not he'll be allowed to play in the Australian Open or not.
	But it's led to a lot of public backlash because they're like, this is insane.
	But Australia has been mostly insane.
	And as we predicted, what's happening in Australia, what's happening in Canada, people in the United States would try.
	In New York and Washington, they're trying to propose laws to create detention camps for the unvaccinated.
	That the public health authorities can, on their own accord, without meeting the...
	There's a constitutional quarantine standard, which is you have to have clear and convincing evidence that a person is at imminent risk of causing another person severe harm.
	In our debate with Dershowitz, Dershowitz acknowledged the same thing as the legal standard and the constitutional standard.
	They're trying to change all of that and say that if a state health official thinks you're a danger...
	They can remove you and your family and stick you in a detention camp in New York and Washington.
	Those laws are obviously going to be challenged.
	But for all the people that said what's happening in Australia would never happen in America, well, guess again.
	I talked about it the first time I read our Quarantine Act, which was amended recently.
	I think it was the swine flu.
	Dude, the things they can do without due process, they can give you an order, and if you violate it, you're violating the terms of the Quarantine Act.
	And so, these detention facilities, which I don't know, I think they've literally built them in Australia, not to be more 30s than German 30s, but they built them because there's good money to launder taxpayer dollars to contractors to build these things.
	My own personal opinion.
	They didn't need to do that.
	In Canada, all they did, and they did in fact do it, was convert hotels, vacant hotels, because nobody's traveling to Canada anymore, convert them to quarantine facilities, and then say, I order you to go here because I think you're a risk.
	And under the Quarantine Act, you have to adhere.
	And then good luck trying to go to court.
	I spat again on the table.
	Good luck trying to go to court and get a judge to say that that quarantine officer's order was egregious or unjustified when all that a judge needs, apparently, Is one example of a long-term healthcare facility getting infected because of somebody who got their...
	It's nuts.
	And so what you're seeing, you're seeing it in Australia in a more egregious way, but it's in the letter of the law in Canada.
	It's never been tested constitutionally.
	And at the very least, in the United States, people test things constitutionally, which God bless them.
	We criticize the litigious society, but it has its perks and benefits.
	There's a certain gentleman down in Austin, Texas, that has been saying these are dangerous legal principles for two decades now.
	And, you know, FEMA camps and all of those things that he said, someday they're going to misuse this power.
	And now we're starting to see them openly look at trying to abuse this power on a national scale that's frightening.
	Some people said that the hearing was actually live right now.
	I had the chat.
	Oh, in Australia.
	That's probably right because it's tomorrow morning.
	This is for a tennis tournament that starts when?
	It starts this week.
	Yes.
	And in fact, the government of Australia tried to delay the hearing until after the tournament was over.
	And they lost, of course, thankfully.
	The Australian courts took it seriously enough, I think because of the political controversy.
	This blew up so big in the press that, again, the court of public opinion influenced the courts.
	Now we'll see if the Australian courts have the courage to do the right thing.
	That's the big question.
	It's Rocco Gulati.
	That's the Canadian lawyer who's been filing the suits.
	We would have it all.
	Any day of the week, if anyone gets Rocco Gulati, I'll message them out again.
	And we got a lot of...
	Alex Jones is right.
	Alex Jones is right.
	I love it.
	I love it because the meme, Alex Jones is right, it's science fiction and it's conspiracy theory until it's reality.
	Let me just see here.
	Robert, did we miss anything of the evening?
	I think we've done damn well for the evening.
	Yeah, the only other sort of minor matter, but Bob Dylan is still having to fight out how much of that $300 million he sold his music catalog for belongs to him versus other people.
	There's some people that have helped write some of the songs back in the day, and they still want more money than they've got.
	And so he won the first case, but that is now going up on appeal and they're fighting again.
	He used to be a neighbor of mine in Malibu.
	He was right down the road from me.
	But he's going to still have to keep battling because people still want to take credit for what he claims is really his work.
	So far, he keeps winning, but we'll see as it goes along.
	And then Taylor Swift has to keep battling on a couple of cases about whether songs are hers or somebody else's as well.
	Someone says Rocca Galati is in ICU on ventilator.
	I didn't know that, so I was not trying to be glib or anything.
	This is the crazy thing.
	We live in a time now where people will continue to die publicly.
	Public figures will die, and it's always going to be a question of weaponizing, politicizing, or questioning.
	Have they been boosted?
	If they've been boosted, attribute it to this.
	Have they not been boosted?
	Blame it on that.
	People cannot die in peace anymore.
	That's the problem.
	When you have to have funerals by Zoom.
	Robert, you're going to get me angry and make me cry as we end the stream.
	I get angry.
	I get angry.
	You have to have funerals by Zoom.
	And that's it.
	That's the new normal.
	The new normal is the government owns your body, they own your memory, they own your future, they own your past, and they own your rights to mourn.
	It's an absolute outrage.
	What do we have on for...
	Oh, sorry, Don Lemon.
	Sorry, I meant to yell.
	What do we have on for Don Lemon, Robert?
	Is there a trial coming up soon?
	No schedule yet.
	Now, if and when that happens...
	I would very much love to show up in person and be the...
	I'm going to shut him out.
	Inner City Press, Matthew Robert Lee.
	I would love to be that guy in that court.
	And I've got an insider because I believe I know you well enough, Robert, that you'll give me some details.
	I would love to be there.
	If I can't be there, we might make things happen.
	Oh, they are demanding a bench trial on the grounds that because I appeared and talked about the case on Megyn Kelly, which I only did after they bashed my client publicly.
	Which they forget to mention, of course, that that means that the whole Manhattan jury pool is so utterly contaminated that they can't possibly give a fair trial.
	Why is Don Lemon so scared of a liberal Democratic New York jury?
	I mean, if he's in the right, if he did nothing wrong.
	I would want to be vindicated if I was him.
	He seems terrified of what a jury would decide.
	You have to wonder, why is that?
	Well, I might even argue that at this point in time, the public opinion may have changed on anyone related to CNN.
	That, yeah, when you have enough producers who are accused of very bad things, a number of, what do they call them, the people who talk?
	The Cuomo guy.
	I'm talking about Cuomo.
	When you have an institution of corruption, yeah, the public opinion might be shifting, that you might not be innocent.
	Reliable sources, the most trusted name in news, you might be criminals.
	So we'll see.
	I'll love to see that.
	What do we have coming up next week?
	I'm not sure who we have for Wednesday yet.
	That's sort of up in play depending on other people's schedules.
	There's a range of people who have committed to wanting to be on, including Bobby Kennedy, Michael Malice, a range of others.
	But we just have to, Dave Smith, we just have to align the time to make it happen.
	It'll be good, because I know that Dave Smith, he's been in my DMs.
	Dave Smith is going to come on.
	It's just a matter of time.
	Malice, I love it.
	Just a matter of time.
	What about Dershowitz saying he apparently told Trump to pardon Maxwell?
	So first of all, Robert, actually, we might be able to end on this.
	Dershowitz should probably not be talking about Maxwell.
	I mean, do we agree on that?
	Well, I don't know.
	I mean, he did represent Epstein.
	What his duty is in that context.
	Probably an open issue.
	I mean, I wouldn't be recommending that, but that would have been a political disaster for Trump.
	But, I mean, Glenn Greenwald did come out with more details, confirming what we had talked about all the way back last January, which is the reason Trump did not pardon Snowden or Assange, which, thanks to Candace Owens for pushing him on that and on the vaccine mandate and her questioning, was because...
	Basically, political pressure brought by Republican senators who said, and by Mike Pompeo, who Mike Pompeo was the main person fighting to stop the pardon of Julian Assange and the pardon of Edward Snowden because Mike Pompeo is a neocon hack who managed to trick Trump by complimenting him into thinking he was anything but a neocon hack.
	He's always been a neocon hack.
	This goes way back, if you know his real history.
	But basically, the Mitch McConnell blackmailed Trump into wussing out.
	He was about to pardon.
	He was looking at pardoning at least one of Snowden or Assange.
	He was looking at pardoning both on the grounds that I had cited, which is he should do it as payback to the people who made his life hell for the same people who are really targeting Assange and Snowden.
	But he wussed out after January 6th because of the basically blackmail attempts by Mitch McConnell that said, I have a bunch of Republican senators that will vote to convict if you pardon either one of them.
	All right.
	And now with that said, I think, Robert, you have been a gracious victim of the Omicron, struggling it through for two plus hours.
	I think we'll cut you some slack.
	We've done great.
	And by the way, So everybody else knows, we also have suffered the Omicron.
	You may not have even noticed when I had the Omicron, because I'm robust.
	You might have noticed.
	But, Robert, you'll be fine.
	You'll be healthy.
	And a little grandpa's old cough syrup will wash down the O. But, Robert, everyone in the chat, thank you for everything.
	Everyone in the viewing this comments, clip clips, share it away.
	Thank you for being here.
	Robert, thank you for putting up with this for two-plus hours.
	I did not know this coming into this, but Robert and I will talk for a few minutes afterwards.
	Wednesday's going to be great.
	Sunday's going to be great.
	Big news coming this week.
	I don't know.
	Something's going to happen.
	I'm going to put the dog down.
	So with that said, people, Robert, you know what?
	No, people might need inspiration, and I might not be able to give it to them because I'm too negative and I'm too down.
	On what's going on here, give people some inspiration before we wind up our stream.
	Well, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court this week will stay the OSHA vaccine mandate, and that will be the first U.S. Supreme Court to ever stop a vaccine mandate in American history.
	And so that's extraordinary news, and it's due in large part to ordinary people like the people in this audience making their voices heard that is going to make that a reality.
	All right, people.
	And with that said, thank you all.
	I don't know who's live now, but undoubtedly, if you're still hankering for some legal news, you can find someone on the YouTubes.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	I owe everyone out there.
	I'm going to have Chris Martinson's podcast up tomorrow with this one.
	Stick around.
	Everything good and don't lose faith.
	Don't lose faith.
	Don't be blindly adhering to faith, but fight your battles and fight them properly.
	With that said, enjoy the rest of the week.

▲